[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-grub] Re: grub-0.93-win32-iso9660.diff
From: |
Robert Millan |
Subject: |
Re: [Bug-grub] Re: grub-0.93-win32-iso9660.diff |
Date: |
Mon, 8 Sep 2003 19:09:45 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 04:44:44PM +0100, Yoshinori Okuji wrote:
>
> Please understand at least this point: GRUB would be GRUB even if support for
> Linux is omitted, while GRUB would not be GRUB if support for Multiboot
> disappears.
>
> The reason why I may compromise without finishing Multiboot issues is just
> that
> the missing features are not necessary to boot Multiboot-compliant OSes in
> most cases (such as GNU/Hurd).
Agreed. Moreover, it should be noted that as a GNU project, GRUB's primary
purpose is being part of the GNU system (i.e: GNU/Hurd).
--
Robert Millan
"[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."
-- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)
- grub-0.93-win32-iso9660.diff, Robert Millan, 2003/09/02
- Message not available
- Re: grub-0.93-win32-iso9660.diff, Yoshinori Okuji, 2003/09/03
- Re: grub-0.93-win32-iso9660.diff, Dr. Tilmann Bubeck, 2003/09/04
- Re: grub-0.93-win32-iso9660.diff, Yoshinori Okuji, 2003/09/04
- Re: grub-0.93-win32-iso9660.diff, Robert Millan, 2003/09/04
- Re: [Bug-grub] Re: grub-0.93-win32-iso9660.diff, Jason Thomas, 2003/09/04
- Re: [Bug-grub] Re: grub-0.93-win32-iso9660.diff, Yoshinori Okuji, 2003/09/05
- Re: [Bug-grub] Re: grub-0.93-win32-iso9660.diff,
Robert Millan <=
- Re: [Bug-grub] Re: grub-0.93-win32-iso9660.diff, Timothy Baldwin, 2003/09/12
- Re: [Bug-grub] Re: grub-0.93-win32-iso9660.diff, Yoshinori Okuji, 2003/09/13
Re: grub-0.93-win32-iso9660.diff, Robert Millan, 2003/09/04