Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No more boot loader: Please use the kernel instead

pretalx.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 460 posts

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

#371

Post by Thoreandan »

userbinator wrote: post #232

Does anyone still remember when you could just dd the Linux kernel to a floppy and it would be its own bootloader? https://yosemitefoothills.com/LinuxBoot/BD-1Disk.htm Here's some more documentation on this: https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/x86/boot.txt What's old is new again... except 100x more complex and likely more than necessary.

Just checked and amusingly I'd forgotten that boot/root predated LILO, I must've first seen LILO when I installed Softlanding Linux. Since I didn't have any networking on my home machine, Linux was basically a "Look, run GCC on your home machine!" option for '91 that didn't involve going through DJGPP's DOS port.

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

#372

Post by mixmastamyk »

creshal wrote: post #248
mixmastamyk wrote: post #246

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.

sd-boot on Debian 12+ is mostly self-configuring, and the folder structure is just one folder? Not sure what's messy about that.

On fedora it is 10+. Do a tree command on the efi partition.

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

#373

Post by sqeaky »

redox99 wrote: post #307
korhojoa wrote: post #305

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.

He's saying the opposite: Host has integrated graphics, VM has dedicated GPU.

How can the host have integrated graphics, if integrated graphics don't exist?

Per, Korhojoa, and my personal experience plenty of desktop CPUs simply don't have integrated GPUs. Consumer mainboards simply don't come with them at all. Consider my previous workstation CPU, top of the line a few years ago and no iGPU: https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/desktops/ryzen/50...

Integrated GPUs is a feature of server mainboards so that there is something to display with for troubleshooting, but not on any retail mainboards I am aware of. It is a feature of some consumer grade GPUs designed for either budget or low-power gaming. It simply doesn't exist on all CPUs, consider the AMD 5600, 5600x and 5600g, last gen mid-range CPUs adequate for gaming and the x had a little more clock speed, and the g had an iGPU.

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

#374

Post by markandrewj »

alerighi wrote: post #45

It's something you can do since a lot of years. I used to do so 10 years ago, when I've got the first motherboard with UEFI. But is it useful? It saves a minimal time in the boot sequence, but at what cost? The bootloader (being it grub, or something more simple as systemd-boot) is useful to me for a couple of reasons: - it allows to dual-boot with Windows easily: motherboard boot menu is often not easy to access, yo…

It is bold of RedHat to claim this is 'their solution'. UEFI has already been used for years to boot without grub. Some examples, MacOS, HP-UX, or systemd-boot via UEFI.

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

#375

Post by [deleted] »

sqeaky wrote: post #373
redox99 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's saying the opposite: Host has integrated graphics, VM has dedicated GPU.

How can the host have integrated graphics, if integrated graphics don't exist? Per, Korhojoa, and my personal experience plenty of desktop CPUs simply don't have integrated GPUs. Consumer mainboards simply don't come with them at all. Consider my previous workstation CPU, top of the line a few years ago and no iGPU: https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/desktops/ryzen/50... Integrated GPUs is a feature of server…

[deleted]

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

#376

Post by TylerE »

Arch-TK wrote: post #366
TylerE wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even after you’ve already installed a custom boot laser to it? I mean, I agree with you in principle, but we already have the chicken - can’t existence of the egg be assumed?

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

#377

Post by creshal »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #372
creshal wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sd-boot on Debian 12+ is mostly self-configuring, and the folder structure is just one folder? Not sure what's messy about that.

On fedora it is 10+. Do a tree command on the efi partition.

Fedora and other Redhat-related distributions are an exercise in masochism regardless of the bootloader choice.

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

#378

Post by lproven »

ndiddy wrote: post #345
lproven wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not certain about this, but I think that these options no longer work on UEFI machines. GRUB does not have control over what options are presented if GRUB isn't the selected bootloader. This stuff is BIOS-only.

I have this working on a UEFI system. You select your Linux drive in the UEFI configuration (so the computer always boots into GRUB) and then GRUB will boot into Linux or Windows depending on the last saved option.

Sure, but whether that GRUB entry is remembered as the default is up to the UEFI not GRUB. If you pick another entry GRUB is powerless to effect it.

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

#379

Post by Certhas »

cycomanic wrote: post #201
mjg59 wrote: post #116

A lot of the commentary here is based on misunderstandings of the capabilities and constraints of a UEFI environment and what the actual goals of this project are, and I think miss the mark to a large degree. Lennart's written some more explicit criticism at https://lwn.net/Articles/981149/ and I think that's a much more interesting set of concerns.

I have to say I find Lennart's arguments quite unconvincing. As another person said, the vast majority of people just want default boot to the most recent kernel (which this proposal could do well). But then when it comes to the other points, yes I want to be able to reliably boot into other systems, but both systemd-boot and grub are notoriously bad at detecting other systems on disks (both use install-time detectio…

Also, from what I understand after watching some of the video demonstration in the Q&A, I could just have another EFI entry point towards the nmbl configuration with a grub like menu, and get an exact replica of the grub experience. Having to go through the BIOS boot menu for those rare occasions where I need it is perfectly reasonable.

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

#380

Post by lproven »

surajrmal wrote: post #328
lproven wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably was, but UEFI was not a good answer. I'd have preferred CoreBoot or OpenFirmware, but the PC industry was too slow to move and let Intel -- still smarting from Microsoft forcing it to adopt AMD's 64-bit x86 extensions -- take control of the firmware.

The problem with all of the alternatives is that they aren't friendly for alternative OS. They mostly operate on a fork model, so upstreaming support for an OS doesn't mean everyone using that bootloader will support your OS. You either need to pretend to be Linux with a sort of boot shim, or build and flash a custom bootloader with support, which might be non trivial if you cannot get access to the forked bootloader…

Both the suggestions I gave were designed and built to be FOSS and work with any OS.

UEFI is more restrictive -- and tightly controlled by large industry vendors, not the community -- than either of them.

So, no, I totally disagree on all points.

Post reply on HN