Ollie Lho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > Ollie Lho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >>Adam Agnew wrote: > >> > >> > >>>I'll resend this message as I believe it was lost. Please see Ron's > >>>response about turning the IDE controllers on in the mainboard section. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Adam, > >> Could you give me more detail on your current status > >>about LinuxBIOS + IDE boot ?? I am looking for any solution > >>to get rid of DoC. > >> > > Ollie what is your situation with the DOC? Are you just looking > > for alternatives or do you have a genuine problem? > > > > > I just get bored with DoC :-). Actually we are looking dor an > alternative way to do things. The current everything in DoC style > means that SiS is putting all its eggs in an sole supply device. > This is not good from business point of view. Beside, many cumsomers > want DOM anyway.
O.k. That makes a lot of sense. > > As far as things go Adam has a proof of concept implementation that > > seems to work. I couldn't get it to boot my kernel but it looked > > like a stupid bug that should take just a couple of hours to debug. > > Beyond that I believe he made it work with redboot code, so while > > he can freely redistribute it, he cannot include it in a GPL work > > like linuxBIOS, or etherboot. > > > > > I don't get this. If LinuxBIOS is used as a loader to load whatever > > 2nd loader Adam happened to put in (RedBoot) without any kind of > linkage. Is it still breaking the GPL ?? O.k. let me clarify. Running RedBoot is fine. But then since RedBoot did not have support for booting a kernel BIOSless on x86. So he did not have a complete solution. His proof of concept was a merger of Etherboot and RedBoot. And the RPL (RedBoot) and the GPL (Etherboot) are incompatible. So he could prove it worked but really couldn't go farther, without rewriting something. Eric
