On 05/09/08 17:08 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
Hi,
I notice in http://tracker.coreboot.org/trac/coreboot/ticket/88 that Coresystems is no longer working on GRUB 2 (that's too bad, sorry that it didn't work out, etc...).
I have nothing to say about what you will be recommending as default bootloader in the future. Right now your wiki still recommends GRUB 2, and I suppose Coresystems folks will want to push for FILO. But this is not a discussion I want to be involved in (just wanted to clarify ;-)).
Coresystems has people that depend on them for a livelyhood - they have to do what is best for their customers, and we are very lucky that their goals often align with those of the community. I do wish things had ended up differently, but I welcome the FILO work because it make both FILO and libpayload that much better, and thats not a bad thing.
But I don't think we as a community are ready to abandon GRUB2 quite yet. We need a working bootloader for Linux, that is true, but I believe in providing options to our customers. If there are people willing to do the work for GRUB2, then we'll be glad to keep tracking it in the wiki and in buildrom.
When you anoint a single program as the "chosen one" then you lock yourself for trouble down the road. I would much prefer to chose between 3 great programs then one mediocre one.
What I'm concerned about is that http://www.coreboot.org/GRUB2 in the wiki currently points to a branch of GRUB that is (unless I missed something) no longer being maintained. And it provides information that will, over time, become more and more obsolete. I'm worried that this can reflect bad on the image of GRUB.
So what I'd like is permission to keep it up to date, and reflect the current state of GRUB mainline. If you would give me a wiki account to do that, it'd be much appreciated.
I second the request.
Jordan