From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) Subject: Re: Linux/386bsd on a diskless workstation Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 02:07:40 GMT
In article <C5zLuL.KBC@sugar.neosoft.com> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <1993Apr22.214040.27674@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
>> location that doesn't interfere with the operation of the download. This
>> is the first good argument I have heard for a DOS boot-loader for 386BSD
>> or Linux...
>
>No, it's not. It's not a new argument: it's the same argument that the folks
>who want a DOS bootloader have been using all along. You sometimes need to
>do stuff in DOS to deal with proprietary hardware or systems before you get
>into a real O/S. Whether that's loading over a network or setting up some
>weird video card, it's the same basic problem: you can't leverage off DOS
>drivers any other way.
I think this was the first time someone has suggested a boot loader for the
purposes of doing a *boot* using a method that was previously unavailable.
This is *very* different from the suggestion that (to put it bluntly) some
sort of half-assed support should be rigged to allow something like a
Diamond Speedstar to work without the manufacturer having to stoop to
acknowledging the existance of something other than DOS. I am *firmly*
against accepting second-class citizen status in any case, and doubly so
if DOS is the supposed first class citizen.
The reason behind propritary interfaces in the DOS market is to allow a
company to compete in a given market with an inferior product... the lack
of proper public documentation is a secondary revenue source for the
manufacturer. Companies with inferior products should not be rewarded.
The ability to "leverage off of DOS drivers" implies at least a partial
dependance on DOS drivers -- this is also objectionable from a "purist"
point of view.
Terry Lambert
terry@icarus.weber.edu