From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:32:42 -0500 From: Karl Magdsick To: Eric Van Hensbergen , Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <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 References: <32a656c204111716543de2b0cd@mail.gmail.com> Cc: Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0601e3ca-eace-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 How difficult would it be to make the Plan9 kernel compliant with the MultiBoot standard? This would seem to be the path of least resistance for getting the Plan9 kernel working with other bootloaders. In addition to working "out of the box" with MultiBoot bootloaders, there are tools that will wrap any MultiBoot kernel (plus any modules) along with some stub code into an image that can be booted by any bootloader that can boot a Linux kernel. There is a similar tool to get any MultiBoot kernel (plus any modules) to mimic one of the BSD kernels. -Karl On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 19:28:20 -0600, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote: > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:54:40 +0900, Vester Thacker > wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:11:42 -0500, jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com > > wrote: > > > > Are you looking for volunteers for creating a new > > bootstrap? If so, then maybe a working group > > could be formed... something akin to what EricVH > > has done with v9fs. > > > > Personally, I'd rather see us punt on the whole loader issue > where-ever possible. It seems reasonable enough to use "other > people's loaders" to boot Plan 9. I believe Ron talks about booting > Plan 9 from LinuxBIOS on the Wiki and I'm sure other loaders could be > made to work. We have enough to do without having to worry about > writing boot loaders. > > -eric >