grub-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: grub2 vs. kexec


From: Robert Millan
Subject: Re: grub2 vs. kexec
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 14:35:35 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:58:31PM +0100, Michael Reichenbach wrote:
> 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?

Actually, it's the other way around.  GRUB is designed from scratch to be
a bootloader.  It can have many features, but that's not the important.  When
it comes to a bootloader, other things, such as being small/fast and having
a reliable installation system are.

We do realize GRUB is not an OS kernel, and it doesn't intend to be anything
more than a temporary stage that can load kernels (Marco once joked about
adding context switching and a scheduler, but it was just a joke ;-)).

OTOH, this "kexec" idea strikes me as Linux trying to be a bootloader instead
of a kernel [1].  Sure, it can be a bootloader if someone implements the missing
things (a GUI, an installation system, etc), but it can't fit the purpose that
well, since every single line of its code is designed with another idea in
mind: "once we're running, we stay there".

This just means they aim at different things.  Which is good because in the
end, the parts complement each other.

[1] It's funny, it reminds me of EFI in the exact opposite situation :-)

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]