From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <90434074e615c95c1ad55afb9f6687eb@plan9.bell-labs.com> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:53:23 -0500 From: jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] pc boot and ether drivers In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 065a0be0-eace-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:11:42 -0500, jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote: > It's mostly historic and most of the reasons have gone away. > Sharing code with the current 9load code would be more trouble > than it's worth. There are ideas for doing a better job by > rewriting the bootstrap altogether, but who knows if/when it > will ever be done. By 'rewriting the bootstrap altogether' I would make it go away altogether and use the kernel to boot another kernel. We can do this already but some of the details are a bit messy and a tidy up and re-organisation would be a good idea; this is likely to fall out of something else I hope to be doing soon. How you get the first (bootstrap) kernel into memory could be the same as now, using whatever methods you like - Plan 9 MBR/PBS, Grub, LILO, LinuxBIOS, PXE, whatever. On Wed Nov 17 20:29:00 EST 2004, ericvh@gmail.com wrote: > ... > We have enough to do without having to worry about > writing boot loaders. > > -eric Agreed. On Wed Nov 17 23:01:38 EST 2004, russcox@gmail.com wrote: > the boot process is crappy enough. > let's not make it crappier. Agreed. --jim