Live data from Hacker News

No more boot loader: Please use the kernel instead

pretalx.com

361–370 of 460 posts

Re: No more boot loader: Please use the kernel instead

#361

Not sure why loaders are a separate beast any more. In the bad old days, ROMs had very limited space. Lots of bootloader packages got invented, tiny things that knew just enough about ROM and the filesystem to get the 'real' code loaded, maybe un-zipped, maybe unencrypted. Later, some network-boot options which were handy. Today? The boot flash is huge (compared to ROMs). You can put an entire OS in there! In fact, n…

The reason is very simple, you only get to call ExitBootServices() once (absent hacks that hook the function). If you want to be able to do anything prior to calling ExitBootServices(), such as choose what EFI application you want to use and options you want to pass it, you need a service built to provide you that interface which itself does not call ExitBootServices(). The name of that service is the bootloader.

...which should simply be another build of a real OS. Not some weird beast we inherited from the bad old days of tiny ROMs.

Re: No more boot loader: Please use the kernel instead

#362
post #38

What's the point of using this over plain EFISTUB? I use it with Arch, and whenever I want to boot to Windows, I just use the BIOS menu. I don't see what benefit a Linux-based bootloader provides.

Not that I would want to dual boot on my 64 gb surface go 2, but if I did, I'd need a bootloader with a menu, because there isn't one in the bios.

Re: No more boot loader: Please use the kernel instead

#363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumer motherboards haven't had gpus for a while now (IPMI usually comes with one, so servers do), they're built in to the CPU (if they are, not all cpus have them). These can't usually be easily allocated to a vm.

I clicked randomly on a number of motherboards sold by the 2 brands that came to my mind, Asrock and Gigabyte, and all of them advertised hdmi and usb-c graphics output so I am surprised by your declaration that consumer motherboards don't have GPU. If I am not mistaken on AMD Ryzen architecture it comes down to choosing a CPU with a G or 3D suffix which states they have an integrated GPU.

Desktop Ryzen 4's and newer have a very small iGPU that's just enough to put up a desktop (and presumably a framebuffer fast enough to feed a discrete card's output into)

Re: No more boot loader: Please use the kernel instead

#365
I've been using `systemd-boot` for many years, which comes with the system. It's a bit simpler than Grub and LILO (team 90s, represent!). Most BIOSes have variable support for booting random images, but last time I got a new system, it was confusing to use and a bit of hit-and-miss.

Re: No more boot loader: Please use the kernel instead

#366
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could kexec other kernels but probably won't be able to jump to other OS bootloaders after it already called ExitBootServices.

Theoretically, couldn't it just write to a "boot this image next time" field (is the legacy MBR area available?) and trigger a reboot?

The boot disk isn't guaranteed to be writable.

Re: No more boot loader: Please use the kernel instead

#367
post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I clicked randomly on a number of motherboards sold by the 2 brands that came to my mind, Asrock and Gigabyte, and all of them advertised hdmi and usb-c graphics output so I am surprised by your declaration that consumer motherboards don't have GPU. If I am not mistaken on AMD Ryzen architecture it comes down to choosing a CPU with a G or 3D suffix which states they have an integrated GPU.

It really still is the case that most if not all consumer motherboards don’t have built in graphics. For the most part especially on the intel side, they’ve relied on the iGPU in the CPU for output for probably 10 years now

Well my case still stand that you still have an integrated graphics, if not by the motherboard but the GPU, that you can use on the host while you dedicate a discrete card for VM passthrough.

Re: No more boot loader: Please use the kernel instead

#369
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But to load it at boot time it absolutely must be done through an initramfs. Is that right? Yes, because it cannot be part of the kernel image, or it would be illegal (a violation of the GPL license) to distribute that kernel. Therefore, it must be a module, and that module has to live somewhere and be loaded by something. If root is on ZFS, this must therefore live in an initramfs and be loaded by it so that the i…

It doesn't have to be a module if you're building the kernel for yourself. No violation in that.

That would run afoul of Turkish copyright vignette laws, that have an exemption for stuff everyone can use and redistribute royalty-free but no exemption for stuff that you can use royalty free but not redistribute.

Re: No more boot loader: Please use the kernel instead

#370

I recently moved to sdboot and prefer its simplicity compared to grub. However they still missed the mark a bit, its folder tree on the ESP is a mess. I’ll look into this but prefer kernels managed automatically by apt/dnf etc.

You are not clear; by "sdboot" do you mean systemd-boot? The abbreviation is ambiguous. There are other bootloaders called "sdboot" such as this one: https://sourceforge.net/projects/sdboot/ And this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/WiiHacks/comments/glx4dt/sdboot_eve... Please try to avoid ambiguous abbreviations. If you do mean systemd-boot you only saved 5 letters and could mean at least 3 different tools, or maybe m…

Yes, sorry when installing in fedora you have to pass the string sdboot to the kernel at boot. Still kinda experimental.
Post reply on HN