From: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>
To: The development of GRUB 2 <grub-devel@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: grub2 vs. kexec
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 14:35:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090328133535.GD8493@thorin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49CAB717.2030900@freenet.de>
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:58:31PM +0100, Michael Reichenbach wrote:
> With great interrest I was reading http://grub.enbug.org/GSoC/Ideas2009
> the new ideas sound really innovative.
>
> I see two possible approaches to implement such features. Either
> - doing it the GRUB2 way or
> - loading a linux kernel (which supports already all the stuff), loading
> the needed drivers (bluetooth for menu, wlan and tcp/ip for network
> booting) and use kexec to boot the the new kernel
>
> I mean you are going to implement almost a complete operating system
> again for booting another operating system. At the same time there is
> already a complete operating system (linux) which is also able to boot
> another operating system (kexec).
>
> What is the advantage of the GRUB2 way?
Actually, it's the other way around. GRUB is designed from scratch to be
a bootloader. It can have many features, but that's not the important. When
it comes to a bootloader, other things, such as being small/fast and having
a reliable installation system are.
We do realize GRUB is not an OS kernel, and it doesn't intend to be anything
more than a temporary stage that can load kernels (Marco once joked about
adding context switching and a scheduler, but it was just a joke ;-)).
OTOH, this "kexec" idea strikes me as Linux trying to be a bootloader instead
of a kernel [1]. Sure, it can be a bootloader if someone implements the missing
things (a GUI, an installation system, etc), but it can't fit the purpose that
well, since every single line of its code is designed with another idea in
mind: "once we're running, we stay there".
This just means they aim at different things. Which is good because in the
end, the parts complement each other.
[1] It's funny, it reminds me of EFI in the exact opposite situation :-)
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-28 13:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-25 22:58 grub2 vs. kexec Michael Reichenbach
2009-03-26 4:22 ` Pavel Roskin
2009-03-28 13:35 ` Robert Millan [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090328133535.GD8493@thorin \
--to=rmh@aybabtu.com \
--cc=grub-devel@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.