From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Nov 24 12:33:31 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from news-ma.rhein-neckar.de (news-ma.rhein-neckar.de [193.197.90.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7C6514D29 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 12:33:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from daemon@bigeye.rhein-neckar.de) Received: from bigeye.rhein-neckar.de (uucp@localhost) by news-ma.rhein-neckar.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with bsmtp id VAA06868 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 21:31:29 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from daemon@bigeye.rhein-neckar.de) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by bigeye.rhein-neckar.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA95304 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Wed, 24 Nov 1999 19:47:52 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from daemon) From: naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de (Christian Weisgerber) Subject: Re: boot prompts Date: 24 Nov 1999 19:47:51 +0100 Message-ID: <81hbsn$2t1q$1@bigeye.rhein-neckar.de> References: <199911240140.CAA60269@bigeye.rhein-neckar.de> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Jonathon McKitrick wrote: > Why was Forth the language of choice for the FreeBSD bootloader? When the question came up there was--as anybody with some experience in that area could have predicted--a rash of discussion. Of course people insisted that there favorite implementation of scheme or whatnot absolutely had to be chosen for the purpose. And so some people argued and some implemented. The latter ones chose this particular kind of Forth. And when the question came, "okay, who actually has any code?"... That's the way it works. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message