On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 01:44:42PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >control over everything. On top of that, we can't use any >code in the loader from the kernel, so whatever support we >add, we need to add to the kernel too.
We can't re-use the same executable bytes but, with care, we should be able to reuse some of the source code. > At least, I think >it's lame to support fancy graphics in the loader and then >not support at least the same in the kernel. If you raise >the bar for the loader, you also have to raise it for the >kernel. How else would the kernel be able to use the console? We already have splash(4) and can support a character-mode interface to a graphics-mode adapter. IMHO, the major reason for having graphics support in the kernel is KGI/GGI - which offers the possibility of being able to use DDB from X. >So, the question is: how important is it for the user to >be able to tweak it all. For GGI, quite important because the kernel is defining the X resolution. Whether that needs to be the same as the resolution used by the boot loader is a different question. -- Peter Jeremy Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour.
pgpNWMAU4KDJs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
