Is this mainly because of the issues with size, or something else? I'd expect something like etherboot to boot faster (unless of course the Linux version in BIOS was the one you wanted to run). On the other hand I'd expect you to have more work to adapt to new hardware.
If the BIOS ROM (or the equivalent) was big enough to hold the Linux version you wanted to run, does this change your point of view? -----Original Message----- From: Eric W Biederman Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 11:54 AM "Gregg C Levine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello from Gregg C Levine > Regrettably I haven't been paying much attention of late. I mean I do > read all of the mail messages that come from the list, but so far I > think I did miss something. Eric has the kernel exec function been > superseded by something else? Not exactly. But using the linux kernel as a platform for bootloaders looks increasing suboptimal to me. There is a 2.5.x version btw. I will probably return to using the kernel after I have seen how far I can push etherboot, with both an increase in speed it's 23:1 size advantage, for the cases it works etherboot appears to be a much better solution.
