Bill Arbaugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Guys, > > If you look at the list of items, it starts to resemble the functionality of a > real OS. > This was Ron's insight with LinuxBIOS. Unfortunately, Linux is now too big to > fit > > into most flash chips. > > We tried here at UMCP using Red Hat's eCos, but it was too limited. The *BSD > OS's are too large as well. Etherboot has been a good alternative, but as we > look > > at adding more and more. It will become OS like...something it wasn't really > designed > to become. > > Ron played around with Plan9, and that seems to work. > It also has much of the support asked for on the wish list already. > > What are people's thoughts about Plan9?
- Plan9 isn't a widely used OS so this doesn't trivially solve the hardware support disparity. - Plan9 might not go small enough. Large scale usage depends on a strategy that is generally useful. And for that size is an enourmous consideration. I will check it out, as there looks to be some potential with plan9. A lot really depends on what it takes to deploy this stuff. I guess we should also include in the wishlist encrypted signature checking. My working hypothesis is that I will have to build a mini-os, to use for bootloader purposes. And I will measure every solution against what it will take to build a mini-os. The mini-os advantage is that it can steadily improve and not be tied to other goals. Eric
