On Sat, 10 Aug 2002, Preston L. Bannister wrote: > Is this mainly because of the issues with size, or something else? > > I'd expect something like etherboot to boot faster (unless of course the > Linux version in BIOS was the one you wanted to run). On the other hand I'd > expect you to have more work to adapt to new hardware. > > If the BIOS ROM (or the equivalent) was big enough to hold the Linux version > you wanted to run, does this change your point of view?
note that not all of us have given up on linux as the bootloader. We are building a 128-node cluster that will use linux as the bootstrap, and hope to someday announce something somewhat larger that also uses linux as the bootstrap. A couple motherboard manufacturers are talking to us and they understand the need for bigger flash, so will do it. I don't expect etherboot to ever support the range of interfaces that linux does, or equal linux performance for boot, so my use of etherboot is as a stopgap until motherboards become more sane. ron
