Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
>
> The only difference I see is that Intel is pushing everyone to use EFI
> for ia64. It'll be ubiquitous for ia64 machine, but I fail to see why it
> needs to be ubiquitous to be useful.
>
Because otherwise you have another system you also need to support.
>
> Don't forget that ia64 can boot and run 32bit OS'. It will also be using
> EFI.
>
... and it's going to have to have BIOS emulation if it's going to be
able to support stock OSes.
> > I don't expect to see it on 32-bit machines any time soon
>
> Why don't you expect to see it anytime soon? Intel is pushing it now.
> They are far from standards makers, but they do have some weight...
>
Intel pushing != becoming ubiquitous. They have been trying to get rid
of ISA for years. It isn't happening.
> > and it is going to be *eons* until it is ubiquitous.
>
> Doesn't need to be. You don't have EFI, then you don't get the cool
> features EFI boot loaders offer to you. You continue using the older
> style boot loaders (LILO, Syslinux, etc). They obviously still work.
>
> I'd hate to see people putting all of this effort into pushing the old
> legacy style boot loading when that effort is better directed in
> something which will become ubiquitous.
>
The PC platform is over 20 years old, and if there is any evidence it
isn't going to go through such a fundamental change any time soon.
Perhaps by 2010 something will happen. I'm not holding my breath.
-hpa
-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 15 2000 - 21:00:33 EST