Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=SSG%l=SITE2S1-970205182535Z-25440@site2s1.sbservices.com>
From: Jonathan Tarbox - SSG <JonatTar AT sbservices DOT com>
To: "'opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net'" <opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net>
Subject: RE: ~OD: RE: [opendos] OpenDOS + Win95 w/FAT32?
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:25:35 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Precedence: bulk


	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..

	Any ideas?

Jonathan Tarbox

>----------
>From: 	Nicholas R LeRoy[SMTP:nleroy AT norland DOT com]
>Sent: 	Wednesday, February 05, 1997 12:44 PM
>To: 	opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
>Subject: 	Re: ~OD: RE: [opendos] OpenDOS + Win95 w/FAT32?
>
>> From: "Weiqi Gao" <weiqigao AT crl DOT com>
>>
>> Nicholas R LeRoy <nleroy AT norland DOT com> (me) wrote:
>>
>> >                                               Seems *TOO* obvious to
>> >me that that's what we really want.  Build the OpenDOS kernel such that
>> >it understand command line options, etc. like the Linux kernel, and have
>> >the lilo (odlo?) load the kernel from there.  The only thing we really
>> >need that we don't have is a boot sector in the partition (you can't
>> install
>> >lilo on a FAT filesystem) -- obviously an EXT2 would work.
>>
>> I'm of the opinion that we don't need YABL (Yet Another Boot Loader) for
>> OpenDOS.  Grub does a just fine job booting MS-DOS, OpenDOS, Linux, and
>> Windows 95.  If you don't know grub, it's basically lilo, but can be used
>> without Linux.
>
>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?
>
>-Nick (Linux advocate and Green Bay Packer Fan (just *had* to mention
>that)!!!)
>
>
>
>-- 
>+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
>+
>| /`-_     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...
>|
>+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
>+
>
>