Hello, Daniel!
> *grin* I think what we have here is a failure to see the same thing
> when we look at GRUB.
>
> Personally, I look at it and see something that could well count as a
> PROM console or a real firmware support system of the i386 architecture.
>
> You, I suspect (and not without some justification in your view), look
> at it as a boot loader.
I see. Indeed, pure bootloader is a very simple program. The only function
of a bootloader is to load some code in memory and transfer control to it.
GRUB is in fact a bootloader and a boot selector. Boot selector interacts
with user in a friendly way (menu, completion) and lets user choose what
to boot.
But still GRUB is not meant to replace BIOS. You cannot change CMOS from
it, you cannot reprogram flash memory, you cannot activate PnP devices.
GRUB has no support for USB keyboard, so you are on the mercy of BIOS if
you have one.
Being relatively hardware independent, GRUB doesn't know anything special
about the hardware, so it cannot set processor clock or timing for RAM.
I think it is hard to avoid that GRUB will grow to eventually become a
mini-OS and to replace BIOS.
As a result of this discussion I don't feel we should ban people who bring
us more code as long as new features remain optional and don't delay
releasing the first stable version of GNU GRUB.
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
