[coreboot] Rettungsboot

[Zaolin]

In my opinion there are currently two payloads which are really
interesting and promising for end users:

* HEADS - https://github.com/osresearch/heads

* Petitboot - https://secure.raptorengineering.com/content/kb/1.html

I am currently working on the UI of Heads. So feel free to contribute ;)


Best Regards

Zaolin


On 11/26/2016 11:47 PM, ron minnich wrote:
> Oh, my fingers type too much for me now.
>
> The current set of (as you point out) not terrific options is a result
> of linux growing too big for flash, and flash growing too SMALL for
> linux, ca. 2002, when we adopted the payload model. 
>
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 3:46 PM ron minnich <rminnich at gmail.com
> <mailto:rminnich at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     coreboot today is linuxbios minus the linux. The original intent
>     was always that linux be our lifeboat. The current set of (as you
>     point out) not terrific options is a result of linux growing too
>     big for flash, and flash growing too big for linux, ca. 2002, when
>     we adopted the payload model. The original keyword in the config
>     file was 'linux', not 'payload'. The bootloaders we adopted
>     (etherboot, filo, ...) were never (to me) a very satisfactory
>     replacement for linux. They always came with lots of limitations. 
>
>     But why linux? Why a full OS? Simple observation, here in my 35th
>     year of working with firmware and bootloaders. 
>
>     Every bootloader starts simple, and becomes an OS. Every single
>     one starts with the intent of being small and compact and only
>     supporting some needed subset of file systems/devices/protocols
>     and ends up implementing everything. Because there was an attempt
>     to start out simple, no matter how good the intial design is, that
>     design is overwhelmed by the continuous addition of features, the
>     result being a badly bloated, huge system with no apparent design.
>
>     The exception, it has been argued, is EFI, which had some sort of
>     design in 1999. From my point of view, it skipped right past all
>     the initial stages and entered the world bloated and with no
>     apparent design, or at least not a very good one.
>
>     So you need to think, not in terms of lean and clean, but in terms
>     of what it looks like after a few years when everyone has attached
>     their favorite features to your lifeboat. I think it's a mistake
>     to ever think you are going to implement some limited-function,
>     limited-footprint bootloader, because people will jump on it and
>     just add code. Just look at what's happened with systemd.
>
>     Also worth considering is that the tinykernel configs have got
>     linux down to 400K. You can trim it down to that, and carefully
>     add features back. This comes with huge benefits I think. You get
>     drivers that work, protocols that work, all the file systems you
>     want, and you can put nice interactive boot UIs in user mode.
>     Today's flash parts are more than large enough to do a good
>     environment -- tinycore linux could be used, for example, once it
>     was trimmed a bit. It's only about 12M today with a full X
>     environment. 
>
>     Power8 and Power9 systems use linux in flash as their bootloader.
>     This example has not been lost on other systems being developed today.
>
>     I think it's worth considering a tinykernel linux as bootloader
>     before you start with a new thing.
>
>     ron
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20161127/0b42bfe8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/attachments/20161127/0b42bfe8/attachment.asc>