In my opinion there are currently two payloads which are really interesting and promising for end users:
* HEADS - https://github.com/osresearch/heads * Petitboot - https://secure.raptorengineering.com/content/kb/1.html I am currently working on the UI of Heads. So feel free to contribute ;) Best Regards Zaolin On 11/26/2016 11:47 PM, ron minnich wrote: > Oh, my fingers type too much for me now. > > The current set of (as you point out) not terrific options is a result > of linux growing too big for flash, and flash growing too SMALL for > linux, ca. 2002, when we adopted the payload model. > > On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 3:46 PM ron minnich <rminn...@gmail.com > <mailto:rminn...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > coreboot today is linuxbios minus the linux. The original intent > was always that linux be our lifeboat. The current set of (as you > point out) not terrific options is a result of linux growing too > big for flash, and flash growing too big for linux, ca. 2002, when > we adopted the payload model. The original keyword in the config > file was 'linux', not 'payload'. The bootloaders we adopted > (etherboot, filo, ...) were never (to me) a very satisfactory > replacement for linux. They always came with lots of limitations. > > But why linux? Why a full OS? Simple observation, here in my 35th > year of working with firmware and bootloaders. > > Every bootloader starts simple, and becomes an OS. Every single > one starts with the intent of being small and compact and only > supporting some needed subset of file systems/devices/protocols > and ends up implementing everything. Because there was an attempt > to start out simple, no matter how good the intial design is, that > design is overwhelmed by the continuous addition of features, the > result being a badly bloated, huge system with no apparent design. > > The exception, it has been argued, is EFI, which had some sort of > design in 1999. From my point of view, it skipped right past all > the initial stages and entered the world bloated and with no > apparent design, or at least not a very good one. > > So you need to think, not in terms of lean and clean, but in terms > of what it looks like after a few years when everyone has attached > their favorite features to your lifeboat. I think it's a mistake > to ever think you are going to implement some limited-function, > limited-footprint bootloader, because people will jump on it and > just add code. Just look at what's happened with systemd. > > Also worth considering is that the tinykernel configs have got > linux down to 400K. You can trim it down to that, and carefully > add features back. This comes with huge benefits I think. You get > drivers that work, protocols that work, all the file systems you > want, and you can put nice interactive boot UIs in user mode. > Today's flash parts are more than large enough to do a good > environment -- tinycore linux could be used, for example, once it > was trimmed a bit. It's only about 12M today with a full X > environment. > > Power8 and Power9 systems use linux in flash as their bootloader. > This example has not been lost on other systems being developed today. > > I think it's worth considering a tinykernel linux as bootloader > before you start with a new thing. > > ron > > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org https://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
