Subject: extended facilities, was Re: Adding Multiboot support (or not)
To: <>
From: Bill Studenmund <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 12/30/2005 10:53:40
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 03:17:08PM +0100, wrote:
> To summarize for me (but this exceeds what jmmv original mail was
> about), considering boot and GRUB:


> 2) extended facilities (a bootloader being a minimal kernel running on
> the bare metal for debugging/fixing/exploring) would be better handled
> by working on the NetBSD kernel and framework (libstand, both for MI and
> reuse of existing code is already there for example). This all
> has to do with embedded system and will benefit embedded system work;

How exactly does this help an embedded system?

All the embedded systems I've worked with either were evaluation boards,=20
where something like a generic or custom kernel was fine, or were=20
products. In your products, you know what you have where and so you=20
can/should use a wired-down kernel. Thus you don't need a baby kernel to=20
figure out where things are.

Take care,


Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)