4 ms·
On servers, you're already booting a Linux kernel. IMO, it's simpler to boot an older version of Linux that ultimately shares almost all the relevant code with
by pcwalton 9y ago
On servers, you're already booting a Linux kernel. IMO, it's simpler to boot an older version of Linux that ultimately shares almost all the relevant code with your production version of Linux than to have two entirely separate codebases.
For example, if you fix a bug in an upstream Linux driver needed at boot time, then both your production system and your bootloader will automatically get it (once you rebuild and reflash). With the traditional UEFI setup, you have two separate codebases, each with their own sets of bugs. I don't see how that is simpler.
- snvzz 9y ago>For example, if you fix a bug in an upstream Linux driver needed at boot time Or, for example, if there's a bug in a Linux driver, neither linux nor the bootloader (which is also linux) will work. >With the traditional UEFI setup, you have two separate codebases, each with their own sets of bugs. Except Linux is a multi-megabyte-clusterfuck, and the bootloader likely is simple and easy to understand/debug, and will keep working as long as the hardware it needs to boot remains the same, which is usually the case.
- ploxiln 9y agoThis "LinuxBoot" is trying to replace most (or all) of UEFI on systems it can support, not just grub. UEFI is also multi-megabyte, and arguably more of a "clusterfuck", forked from intel's UEFI upstream some years ago and sloppily adapted by motherboard vendors.