Pavel Roskin
Wed, 09 Aug 2000 11:46:56 -0700
Hello! On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, E. Larry Lidz wrote: > >Also try > >chainloader --force +1 > > Alas, this still gives me "bad magic". Indeed, GRUB doesn't contain words "bad magic", so "--force" is irrelevant. > >It looks like that OpenBSD also expects some new interface to the > >bootloader. The idea of a unified bootloader doesn't seem to be popular > >among *BSD folks. > > Just what would it take for the OpenBSD to be more easily bootable from > Grub? What's unclear to me is whether it won't boot natively because > the OpenBSD people have a design objection to making it easier for Grub > (and, presumably, other boot loaders) to boot it, or if it's just that > the OpenBSD people don't know what needs to change. I'd like to hear it from OpenBSD/i386 people (architecture is important here, other architectures are not supported by GRUB). I think that the answer will be - we don't want to rely on third-party sources and standards as we have something that works well and something that we can modify at our will. I'm almost sure that the issue is a political one. Multiboot protocol doesn't have the necessary weight and recognition. GRUB is yet to deliver a stable version. For now the best way is to give every OS what it expects from its native bootloader. Then GRUB and (indirectly) the Multiboot protocol will have a chance to gain popularity and encourage OS vendors to use it. Another problem is that GRUB supports only one platform. Multiplatform support would make a huge difference for its acceptance by *BSD vendors. Regards, Pavel Roskin