On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 08:38:18PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > "Wolf Lammen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <snip> > > D. Software Design > > Some of the complexity of stage 1 could be put down to the fact that it is > > designed as an allrounder. Whether you use it on a hard disk or on a floppy > > disk does not matter at all. This was convenient at times when there were only > > two media types bootable. You simply copy the boot track from a floppy > > disk to a hard disk, and all works fine. > > But this concept is broken for quite some time already. First, you see > > plenty of other bootable media such as a CD-ROM. Second, because of BIOS bugs, > > GRUB already patches stage 1 when it loads it onto a hard drive, so simple > > copying won't work any more already. > > If it counts for anything , I'd say it seems like a sensible way > forward. Anything which makes things cleaner is a Good Thing, imo. > Given the relatively small number of active hackers I've seen on this > list I'd be inclined to say that a cleaner architecture from a SW > Design point of view is desirable and might lead to more people being > able to successfully contribute, fix bugs etc. <SNIP>
I suggest you take a look at PUPA (http://www.nongnu.org/pupa/). It's a nice redesign of GRUB, but it doesn't yet have all the features GRUB currently has. -- Jeroen Dekkers _______________________________________________ Bug-grub mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-grub