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
