[syslinux] syslinux vs grub

[Peter Skogström]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> More filesystems isn't a problem; the framework for that is already 
> there, and with the EXTLINUX work I did a lot of (necessary) cleanup 
> that allows disk-based filesystems to share code.  So supporting XFS 
> and Reiser is probably not that hard, although I need to make symlinks 
> work in EXTLINUX first.
>
> It's supporting multiple filesystems *at the same time* that really 
> and thoroughly breaks the syslinux model.  This could mean it's the 
> wrong model, and that's what I'm trying to assess.


If thats what it takes too be mean and lean instead of bloated as grub, 
then so be it.  Maybe its possible to support multiple filesystems at 
the same time but at the price of complexity and bloat. Im not sure but 
isnt the syslinux way to have a framework ( a common ground) and ontop 
of that have different functions ? As pxelinux and isolinux (what I 
mostly uses).
Then booting different filesystems would just expand this family. We 
would have XFSlinux  and more. If a module approach is possible, just as 
Pat suggested it would be great. But as long as adding different 
filesystems can be done without changing the core syslinux/boot code 
into special cases it shouldnt be a maintenace problem.
And  as long as the namesystem on this expanding family is consistent. 
To keep errors from misunderstandings low, that shouldnt be an problem 
either.
Most people only have one filesystem on their machines. Of course some 
also need chainloading NTFS, (I havent tested extlinux yet so I dont 
know if it can be done) but if thats not possible then One can use grub. 
I really think its worth exploring this road (but in this case Im just a 
user so its easy for me to say..). You given us sys pxe iso, just keep 
em coming :-)

I have followed your late hard working nights here lately, so I can 
understand your doubts.
But syslinux today is a remarkebly piece of software  and so far it have 
stand the tests of time.

//Peter