From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.33) id 1CIn21-0006OY-9H for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 07:47:29 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CIn1z-0006OB-9z for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 07:47:27 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CIn1y-0006Nl-FF for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 07:47:26 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CIn1y-0006NU-A6 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 07:47:26 -0400 Received: from [212.43.237.68] (helo=kotoba.storever.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CImuR-0007Si-EU for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 07:39:39 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kotoba.storever.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB6FBF5E9C58 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 13:39:38 +0200 (CEST) From: "Yoshinori K. Okuji" Organization: enbug.org To: The development of GRUB 2 Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 13:40:12 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.1 References: <878ya8144h.fsf@marco.marco-g.com> <200410151732.45230.okuji@enbug.org> <87oej3zjeo.fsf@marco.marco-g.com> In-Reply-To: <87oej3zjeo.fsf@marco.marco-g.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200410161340.12879.okuji@enbug.org> Subject: Re: Framebuffer X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:47:27 -0000 On Saturday 16 October 2004 00:49, Marco Gerards wrote: > That the mode is stored in the binary. IMHO it would be nice if it > would be possible for the user to choose it somehow. I'm afraid that you misunderstand the purpose of the Multiboot Specification. First of all, the spec is not about the user interface of a boot loader. It only defines a boot protocol between a boot loader and an OS image. It is not in the scope of the spec how the mode is chosen by the user. This is quoted from the spec: All of the graphics fields are enabled by flag bit 2. They specify the preferred graphics mode. Note that that is only a _recommended_ mode by the OS image. If the mode exists, the boot loader should set it, when the user doesn't specify a mode explicitly. Otherwise, the boot loader should fall back to a similar mode, if available. Do you still believe that it sucks? I hope you will examine the spec before criticizing it. Okuji