Re: grub2 vs. kexec

[Pavel Roskin]

Quoting Michael Reichenbach <address@hidden>:

> With great interrest I was reading http://grub.enbug.org/GSoC/Ideas2009
> the new ideas sound really innovative.
>
> I see two possible approaches to implement such features. Either
> - doing it the GRUB2 way or
> - loading a linux kernel (which supports already all the stuff), loading
> the needed drivers (bluetooth for menu, wlan and tcp/ip for network
> booting) and use kexec to boot the the new kernel
>
> I mean you are going to implement almost a complete operating system
> again for booting another operating system. At the same time there is
> already a complete operating system (linux) which is also able to boot
> another operating system (kexec).
>
> What is the advantage of the GRUB2 way?

The advantage of the GRUB2 way is that GRUB2 exists already.  I'm not  
aware of a Linux based bootloader.  It's not just a kernel.  You'll  
need a minimal loader for the kernel, some userspace for the menus,  
scripts for modifying connfiguation files.

A Linux based bootloader could compete against GRUB2 for certain  
tasks.  Perhaps it would be bigger and slower, but with more features.  
 I'm not sure Linux kernel developers would be enthusiastic about  
kexec support for Multiboot and FreeBSD kernels, but maybe it can be  
done in userspace.

If you want a Linux based bootloader, make one.

--
Regards,
Pavel Roskin