From:	"Nicholas R LeRoy" <nleroy AT norland DOT com>
Message-Id:	<9702051344.ZM27619@dopey>
Date:	Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:44:41 -0600
In-Reply-To:	owner-opendos@mail.tacoma.net
	"~OD: RE: ~OD: RE: [opendos] OpenDOS + Win95 w/FAT32?" (Feb 5, 1:34pm)
References:	<9702051934 DOT AA29622 AT norsun DOT norland DOT com>
To:	opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Subject:	Re: ~OD: RE: ~OD: RE: [opendos] OpenDOS + Win95 w/FAT32?
Mime-Version:	1.0
Sender:	owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net

> >Maybe so -- I don't know grub.  It seems to have just come out and I haven't
> >had the time and / or need to check it out yet.  But, basically, the idea
> >would be to use a boot loader that is dumb (small).  The other thing that
> >would be nice would be a way to have this boot loader load extra modules
> >for the kernel, so a single micro-kernel, I guess, would take over from
> >there -- you wouldn't have to build up a kernel with ext2 support -- just
> >have a generic kernel that would be loaded and the boot loader would then
> >load the ext2 module (not because it detects it -- only because *you* told
> >it to (in the config file).
> >
> >If grub can do these kinds of things, or could be modified to do these,
> >then it does sound like the answer.  And, as I said, I think it would be
> >a score for the Linux community to have these capabilities, also.
> >If we could have one unified boot loader do all this, then we'd *all* be
> >winners.  :-)  I wonder if I should post my idea to one of the Linux
> >groups?
> >
> 	Now instead of having this "microkernel" that has the FS information
> loaded from the boot loader, have the base Opendos kernel load the
> needed modules as per requested in the config.sys, only problem i see is
> that it wouldn't be able to see the config.sys file as of yet..

I'm *not* trying to start a flame war, but:

This still doesn't solve the problem of loading the FS driver itself, either.
What if you have an ext2 as your primary (only?) FS.  The default OpenDOS
kernel probably won't have ext2 support built in.  So, In your scenerio,
you'd need to do one of these:

1 - To build a custom kernel with xxx FS support built in.  This is how
    we currently handle it in the Linux world.
2 - Have the default kernel with xxx FS support built in even though its
    not needed.
3 - Have a separate small boot partition just to support this.

Personally, I don't like *any* of these solutions.  Yes, I do build Linux
kernels regularly, and it really doesn't bother me, but I know that it is
a pain, and downright overwhelming for some people.

What I'm proposing is that we could all use a common kernel with *no* FS
support in it, and have the boot loader load the primary FS 'driver'.
And, as I've said before, this *would* be a boom for Linux as well (IMHO).

Once again, this is just my $0.02 worth, so take it as just that.  :-)
-Nick

-- 
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| /`-_     Nicholas R LeRoy            | Linux -- What *nix was meant to be. |
|{     }/  nick DOT leroy AT norland DOT com      | gcc   -- What C was meant to be.    |
| \ *  /   Norland Corp                +-------------------------------------+
| |___|    W6340 Hackbarth Rd          |  Escape the Gates of Hell with      |
|          Fort Atkinson, WI 53538     |   The choice of a GNU generation... |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| Hey -- These are my own ideas, not my employer's.  Don't blame them...     |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+

- Raw text -