Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 16:40:21 -0500 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: "Daniel O'Connor" <darius@dons.net.au> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How about building modules along with the kernel? Message-ID: <00043016402100.01312@nomad.dataplex.net> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.000430205219.darius@dons.net.au> References: <XFMail.000430205219.darius@dons.net.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > I think having *our* boot loader grok *other* OS's is a little silly. This isn't about the OS. It is about the FS. We already support a number of FS and can boot from many of them. > They have their own boot loaders :) It's not a question of booting MSDOS from a UFS disk, we already can boot MSDOS from a FAT disk.(to the extent that we call "their" loader from our multi-boot front end. The question has to do with the set of file systems that are acceptable for our root. On dual boot machines and removable media, we already support file systems that were not in the earlier Unix(tm) systems. As additional file systems become available, will we attempt to boot from them? For example, there are file systems that are explicitly designed for flash modules. It might be very nice to load the system from such a device. At the same time, the logic of the loader is becoming more complex. I think that it is appropriate to consider a "modularization" that separates the OS format from the FS format. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00043016402100.01312>