New Bootloader for FreeBSD

Dan writes "FreeBSD Release Engineering team's Scott Long has written a bootloader front-end script that allows one to enable/disable acpi, boot single users, etc. His primary motivation was to allow users to easily disable ACPI, since so many problems are popping up these days with it. He is hoping to have this be on at least the i386 bootcd for FreeBSD 5.1 scheduled for release June 2nd, and is looking for feedback."

Comments

It's not a bootloader

[ciaran_o_riordan]

Heh, great research. He's written a "bootloader front-end script that allows one to enable/disable acpi". Not a boot loader.

He says later that "[if] the script cannot start, it might leave your loader unable to load the kernel".

For people interested in actual boot loaders, GRUB is looking for people to work on the BSD loading code (it works but needs some updating).

Ciaran O'Riordan

Re:It's not a bootloader

[Arandir]

Read the article again. It's not a "bootloader" front-end script, but a "bootloader front-end script". Notice the difference in quotes. One is a bootloader, and the other is a front-end script to a bootloader.

p.s. Please people, take him up on his offer of working on the BSD loading code for GRUB. It's seriously out of date. I've got my own projects on the front burner so I can't at the moment.

Re:It's not a bootloader

[ciaran_o_riordan]

huh? Read my post again :p

I never said it was a: "bootloader" front-end script
Like you, I said it was a: "bootloader front-end script"

(My disagreement was with the title of the article)

anyway...
I forgot to also include a URL in my first post for the GRUB BSD hackers request, so here it is.

Ciaran O'Riordan

Re:It's not a bootloader

[shlong]

Dude, give the editors a break on this one. I purposely made the subject of my announcement abiguous in order to attract attention. Which sounds better, "New Bootloader!", or "My attempt to enhance the user experience with 100 lines of Forth".
Anyways, this is just a start. Hopefully I'll have some time to do cool stuff, like have the loader scan for kernels and present you with a choice, control the serial console, etc. While GRUB is cool and all, editing configuration files is still a turn-off to many people.

Re:It's not a bootloader

[evilviper]

GRUB is looking for people to work on the BSD loading code

Well, considering that the project is hosted on gnu.org, I think it's safe to assume the project is GPL-licensed. Why would any BSD-ers be interested in grub if it isn't BSD-licensed? It seems that most are barely willing to grudgingly accept the GPL'd pieces they already do (which is why I believe Tendra will get plenty of support, and eventually replace gcc in the BSDs).

Besides license issues (which are very significant), I don't know why anyone would WANT grub. When using linux, I much prefer lilo, despite it's faults, for the simplicity and power it has. The BSD loaders are already rather powerful, so unless some masochists out there are dying to look at a graphical menu for 5 seconds before their system boots, what would grub even have to offer, even if it worked on the BSDs?

Re:It's not a bootloader

[Arandir]

Get a clue dude! BSD folk (like me) don't want to write GPLd software, don't want to link to GPLd software, and don't want to put GPLd software in the base system if we can help it, but we have no problem with *using* GPLd software if its worthwhile. Use the best tool for the job.

GRUB is not part of any BSD's base system. It's part of the ports collection. The user can choose to use GRUB or not, just as they can choose to use bash or not. No recipient of a BSD system is going to encumbered by GRUB.

There are times when GPLd software does make sense for the base system (from the FreeBSD perspective). That's when the software is clearly the best of breed and won't encumber anything else. A good example is GNU tar.

GRUB and BootMgr (FreeBSD) are two different kinds of boot loaders. GRUB requires installation in a partition but offers a lot of flexibility. BootMgr only requires a boot block but has only a fraction of the feature set. Depending on your circumstances, one may be more suitable than the other. I prefer BootMgr at home because I rarely boot into other operating systems. At work I need a boot floppy to get into FreeBSD (since I can't alter the MBR). GRUB is the easiest way to make a FreeBSD boot floppy, bare none. My friend prefers GRUB because he is often booting into different operating systems and he can configure GRUB from any of them (all you need is a text editor, no boot0cfg, liloconfig, etc).

p.s. GRUB does work with FreeBSD, but it needs updating, specifically for FreeBSD-5.0.

Re:It's not a bootloader

[evilviper]

Get a clue dude! BSD folk (like me) don't want to write GPLd software, don't want to link to GPLd software, and don't want to put GPLd software in the base system if we can help it, but we have no problem with *using* GPLd software if its worthwhile.

Just so you know, you are lecturing someone who is typing this message on a notebook with OpenBSD 3.3 installed, using an OpenBSD 3.2/Alpha fileserver as a foot-rest, and has a FreeBSD 4.7 box to my left.

don't want to write GPLd software

Well the parent wants you to!

GRUB requires installation in a partition but offers a lot of flexibility.

Wonderful. I was asking what exactly those features are... I would especially like to hear what incredible features make it worth the effort of doing the coding work, and worth the hassle of actually using the GRUB command-line, which is more cumbersome than any other boot-loader (with a command-line) that I've used. Saying "It's so great dude!" isn't exactly going to change my mind.

Re:It's not a bootloader

[flynn_nrg]

There are times when GPLd software does make sense for the base system (from the FreeBSD perspective). That's when the software is clearly the best of breed and won't encumber anything else. A good example is GNU tar.

Funny that you mention GNU tar. The NetBSD folks have had problems with tar files generated by GNU tar which couldn't later be unpacked by NetBSD's pax, and, no, it wasn't PAX's fault, but this annoying 'embrace and extend' trend in GNU software.

Re:It's not a bootloader

[TheRaven64]

Wonderful. I was asking what exactly those features are.

The most useful feature fo grub is the way that removing the partition which contains your bootloader makes your system unbootable. Particularly useful if you frequently install new OSes... (although I've stopped trying to find a decent Linux distro now I've installed FreeBSD.)

Re:It's not a bootloader

[evilviper]

My thoughts exactly.

Kudos on switching. Be sure and check out OpenBSD as well.

Re:It's not a bootloader

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why anyone would WANT grub. When using linux, I much prefer lilo, despite it's faults, for the simplicity and power it has. The BSD loaders are already rather powerful, so unless some masochists out there are dying to look at a graphical menu for 5 seconds before their system boots, what would grub even have to offer, even if it worked on the BSDs?

things i like about grub:

1. netboot
2. lock entries by password
3. netboot
4. pass args to linux kernels (if it just could for the bsds as well)
5. netboot
6. dhcp + load config via tftp

the best thing is netboot, in case i forgot to mention it. load pxegrub or nbgrub and proceed with a nice standard interface that gets its config from the server, can proceed to boot a local floppy, boot a local disk-based w2k, diskless freebsd, netbsd and linux plus memtest86 or some diagnostic floppies(!) via syslinux' memdisk. everything from one menu. as much as grub might suck in combination with the bsds, it's the best i've seen so far for the multiple-diskless-oses-and-more approach.

don't bother with it if all you have is your little linux partition. lilo is enough for you, indeed.

the bsds might have bootloaders themselves, even for netboot, but i don't want to change dhcpd.conf every time i like to quickly boot a -current NetBSD to test something. i want a menu, period.

this just as an example:

default 1
timeout 10

title local: boot from floppy
rootnoverify (fd0)
chainloader +1

title local: Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional
rootnoverify (hd0,0)
chainloader +1

title remote: NetBSD -current
kernel --type=netbsd (nd)/i386.NetBSD.-current.kernel

title remote: NetBSD 1.6.1
kernel --type=netbsd (nd)/i386.NetBSD.1.6.1.kernel

title remote: FreeBSD 5.0-RELEASE
kernel (nd)/i386.FreeBSD.5.0-RELEASE.kernel

title remote: FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE
kernel (nd)/i386.FreeBSD.4.7-RELEASE.kernel

title remote: Linux 2.4.20
kernel (nd)/i386.Linux.2.4.20.kernel ip=autoconfig root=/dev/nfs nfsroot=/usr/home/exports/bin.i386.Linux.2.4.20.po werbox/

title diag: Memtest86
kernel (nd)/i386.Memtest86.bin

title diag: Hitachi (IBM) Drive Fitness Test
kernel (nd)/i386.MemDisk.bin
initrd (nd)/i386.DriveFitnessTest.floppy

title diag: Hitachi (IBM) Feature Tool
kernel (nd)/i386.MemDisk.bin
initrd (nd)/i386.FeatureTool.floppy

on a side note, i'm not surprised only NetBSD does it right by providing proper dhcp vendor strings which you can use to nicely select the root path you give based on which version you want to boot. there is currently no way to distinguish FreeBSD 4.x and linux server-side as they pass no dhcp vendor string. FreeBSD only introduced it in 5.x. Linux still doesn't do it (at least in 2.4.x). OpenBSD doesn't even want to boot without its loader. FreeBSD at least boots somehow although you get strange problems with 4.x (top(1) for example gives "nlist failed"). NetBSD (again) seems to do it The Right Way[tm].

'nuff said, else it turns into NetBSD praise too much

TCM

Re:*BSD is dying

[qqtortqq]

You are one seriously dedicated troll...

Ahem

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a new boot loader. It's a new interactive script that runs on the existing boot loader. The FICL (Forth-Inspired Command Language) based loader has always allowed you to do things like this. It's a nice addition anyway, although I'll probably disable it on my machine if it gets committed.

er, it might just be a script

[DrSkwid]

& afaik, scripts don't get bored

Re:*BSD is dying

[UnknowingFool]

My paranoia tells me that it could be MS. That or the voices in my head.

Wow, pretty clouds.

Extended partitions

[chrysalis]

Does this new boot loader finally allows to install FreeBSD on an extended dos partition ?

I don't understand why BSD never solved that issue. This is a serious showstopper for people who want to try FreeBSD and whoose hard disk already has other operating systems. I really don't want to backup and reinstall every partition of my hard disk just to see what FreeBSD 5 looks like.

Re:Extended partitions

[chefbimbo]

Since you'll never want to use another Unix, that's not a big show stopper there ;-)

bsdforums instanity

[meshko]

I really, really hate it when they post those slashdot bsd articles with links to bsdforums. We do not need this useless layer of indirection. Bsdforums do not have any ifnormation, just a link to the mailing list archive post. If I wanted to read basforums I would. I read slashdot and want a pointer to content, not to a place which has link to the content. This is breeding carma whores.

ACPI

[meshko]

I'm not too clear on what does this do. My CURRENT is a couple of weeks old and I can just do unset load_acpi and it won't load it. The bigger problem is that boot process just hangs if I don't have ACPI loaded.

ACPI

[Animats]

From the BSD ACPI page:

Almost everything in ACPI is transparent, until it does not work. That is usually when you as a user will know there is something not working properly.

Maybe more effort on diagnosis tools, rather than a script to turn it off, is needed.

GRUB's not bad

[siskbc]

Wonderful. I was asking what exactly those features are... I would especially like to hear what incredible features make it worth the effort of doing the coding work, and worth the hassle of actually using the GRUB command-line, which is more cumbersome than any other boot-loader (with a command-line) that I've used. Saying "It's so great dude!" isn't exactly going to change my mind.

First, to disclose, I'm a linux user (Hey! stop throwing things!) though I'm thinking of trying some *BSD flavor. I used to use LILO, it really sucks (I'm sure you guys are really going to argue that one, huh?), so I tried GRUB. It doesn't.

Now, as some pundits have said, GRUB does sort of render your box a tad inoperable if you remove the HDD or partition that contains GRUB. Now, that's not so fun, but it would screw you the same if you removed the HDD with the MBR you're booting from, even if you use a different loader, and that's a similar issue. And really, reinstalling grub on the new HDD isn't hard either assuming you're not swapping drives every day (at which point it might become tedious). So I don't think GRUB's immobilizing one of your drives is a big deal.

I like a few things about GRUB. First, it has no cylinder issues or boot partition size issues like some boot loaders (ahem: LILO!). Also, you don't have to reinstall the loader when you make a configuration change, which is nice if you're screwing with things. Changing the config file is sufficient. Configuration is pretty simple too. It just seems to have a good clean implementation of whatever you'd need to do - kind of like the opposite of sendmail, that's the best way I can put it.

Now, don't get me wrong - I don't LIKE that I like GRUB, as I also tend to avoid GNU software whenever possible (if not GPL software), simply because I consider Stallman to be an annoying turd. But all in all, I think GRUB's a pretty nice bootloader, especially for us poor linux hacks who get tired of mucking around with LILO.

Admittedly, I'm not the best person to be comparing GRUB to BSD bootloaders, but no one else seems to be sticking up for it at all. ;)

Re:GRUB's not bad

[evilviper]

I used to use LILO, it really sucks (I'm sure you guys are really going to argue that one, huh?), so I tried GRUB. It doesn't.

I wouldn't say that Lilo is great, but I think it's a step up from Grub. If I have to use Linux, I stick with Lilo.

it has no cylinder issues or boot partition size issues like some boot loaders (ahem: LILO!).

Hasn't been a problem for lilo since before grub was even created.

you don't have to reinstall the loader when you make a configuration change

You've got one there, but I don't consider it a real big hassle to type "lilo". If nothing else, it provides a good syntax check before you try to use the new config.

I like a few things about GRUB.

My main complaint (although there are plenty of others), is that the boot/time command-line is very clunky, tedious, and hard to use. That is one area where lilo just beats the crap out of grub (and it's something I use very often, so it's a major problem for me).

Re:GRUB's not bad

[siskbc]

Hasn't been a problem for lilo since before grub was even created.

I'm not so sure that has been completely fixed, or maybe it was my BIOS. I had a partition that LILO completely puked on, GRUB had NO problem with it. And my LILO config was fine - I could boot other partitions fine, just not the 20 GB one. Could be that GRUB, being a bit higher-level, was able to overcome this, I don't know. Or maybe I missed a LILO trick (though I tried everything I could think of, like LBA stuff). Either way, after a while of searching and cursing, I couldn't get LILO to work. GRUB took under 10 minutes includnig the download.

You've got one there, but I don't consider it a real big hassle to type "lilo". If nothing else, it provides a good syntax check before you try to use the new config.

Well, it's not the hassle, it's more my forgetful nature. And I don't think I'm completely alone there. ;)

My main complaint (although there are plenty of others), is that the boot/time command-line is very clunky, tedious, and hard to use. That is one area where lilo just beats the crap out of grub (and it's something I use very often, so it's a major problem for me).

That's true, but that's also why I take 1 minute (if that) to make a boot choice screen in my GRUB config file. It's simple as hell. Here's mine:

timeout 60
default 0
fallback 1
color light-gray/blue red/light-gray

#(0) Slackware 9
title Slackware9
root (hd2,0)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz root=/dev/hdg1 ro mem=512M

#(1) Slackware 8
title Slackware8
root (hd1,0)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz root=/dev/hde1 ro
mem=512M

#(2) Winblows
title Winblows
root(hd0,0)
makeactive
chainloader +1

I would say that config is cleaner than LILO's, and as soon as I change that file, I have a nice menu system that takes no effort at boot time. Hell, if I had to use GRUB's command-line crap every time I booted, I'd punt it too! It sure as hell is kind of klunky. But that's what I like - GRUB's command line is really powerful (if clunky) for when you need it - when you don't, it's easy to set up a choice screen. Best of both worlds for me, and you don't have to muck around trying to get LILO, your BIOS, and your HDD to play nicely.

I don't care

[mi]

Because I only have one OS and don't reboot it, you, insensitive clod!