[PC-BSD Testing] grub boot loader & kernel modules
Sam Fourman Jr.
sfourman at gmail.com
Thu Aug 8 16:31:53 PDT 2013
> If the different boot loader makes the setup "completely different",
> then yes, you have to.
> For other >90% of users it doesn't mean completely different setup,
> and at the same time they can enjoy the new features.
> Isn't it nice?
> Of course, another option might be to support TWO boot loaders out of
> the box...
> But this doesn't bring anything but complication.
> Ilya Bakulin
supporting two boot loaders is not really a good idea in my opinion..
I think there are a few issues in play here, I don't think anyone wants PC-BSD
to "deviate" too far from FreeBSD, I'm pretty certain the PC-BSD devs would
agree with me here.
HOWEVER, the state of the current FreeBSD bootloader is, well.
not good, not by any standard. No one here "likes" GRUB, its a pain
in several ways, and its GPL. it's simply just not the BSD way.
BUT, there are New features in FreeBSD that have some pretty stellar use cases,
for both desktop users AND server users.
It would be just silly to ignore these, Boot Environments is but one of these.
What sucks is writing boot code that could be included in Base FreeBSD,
is no trivial task, its hard work, there are MANY different platforms it must
PC-BSD now only supports the amd64 platform. FreeBSD however supports many.
So in the end, We dont prefer the idea of grub, but we kinda need it, for now.
yes this is change, but it's not bad,it's done in the spirt of a better tommrow.
Sam Fourman Jr.
More information about the Testing