I have a similar oppinion !
I think, the network driver stuff is not so bad as is. For our booting
(BOOTP, TFTP), the drivers are sufficient in polling mode. The only
thing is to have correct disbaling functions.
The only stuff, which has to be improved is the probing stuff.
Etherboot uses only
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 10:07:03AM +0200, Christoph Plattner wrote:
I have a similar oppinion !
[..]
PS: Many boot monitors are working polling, and GRUB should become
(or is already) the best boot monitor, but no Operating System !!
What is an OS is a matter of opinion. GRUB is already a
From: Mario Klebsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Time to fork the netboot code?
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 09:14:54 +0200
OTOH, tghe drivers for booting have to be simple.
Why have to? There is no reason that drivers must be simple.
Allthough the requirements differ, I am sure, it is possible
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thursday, 10. May 2001 15:47, OKUJI Yoshinori wrote:
From: Mario Klebsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Time to fork the netboot code?
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 09:14:54 +0200
OTOH, tghe drivers for booting have to be simple.
Why have
From: Mario Klebsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Time to fork the netboot code?
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 18:32:40 +0200
Why have to? There is no reason that drivers must be simple.
I am sorry, I should have written 'should be simple'.
I agree that it would be better that drivers are simple
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Thursday, 10. May 2001 21:36, OKUJI Yoshinori wrote:
From: Mario Klebsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think our situation is very similar to this case. Normal OS drivers
have (maybe a lot of) extra code for us, but they have features
enough for us. They are
I think that any switch to another set of ethernet drivers is a change
best left for after a release of 1.0.
___
Bug-grub mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-grub
From: Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Time to fork the netboot code?
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 11:40:29 -0700
extra feature anyway. So transition to a more powerful set of
device drivers would be necessary.
Hm. Has anyone started on this?
No, AFAIK. However, you cannot do
According to OKUJI Yoshinori:
So transition to a more powerful set of device drivers
would be necessary.
Hm. Has anyone started on this?
No, AFAIK. However, you cannot do this alone. It is necessary to
implement real memory management and handle protected-mode interrupts
and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wednesday, 9. May 2001 08:53, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
According to OKUJI Yoshinori:
So transition to a more powerful set of device drivers
would be necessary.
Hm. Has anyone started on this?
No, AFAIK. However, you cannot do this alone.
According to Mario Klebsch:
The goal would be to convert the situation from
the grub people using the drivers of the etherboot people
to
the grub and etherboot people are using common drivers.
If the Etherboot people would be happy with it, that would be an
improvement. But I
According to OKUJI Yoshinori:
URL:http://www.mail-archive.com/bug-grub@gnu.org/msg0.html
No, I didn't see that.
As you said, Etherboot drivers have defects (for us), but IMO, it is
NOT feasible to maintain ethernet drivers by ourselves, considerring
that we are a small community, and
line by Anonymous May the Force be with you.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Chip Salzenberg
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 9:23 PM
To: Thierry Laronde
Cc: Thomas Schweikle; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Time to fork the netboot code
From: Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Time to fork the netboot code?
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 18:23:11 -0700
Sadly, though I've tried to share this code, nobody wants it. The
Netboot project doesn't care about such a feature, since netboot's
code is designed to be flashed into NIC
14 matches
Mail list logo
