[openbeos] Re: Re[2]: OpenBeOS in competition with BeOS

>Without knowing the issue on the Palm deal, what I'd suggest is we can 
>work first on things that we know we will have to strip anyway. 
>I think mainly about the bootloader, I heard that it was licenced. 
>I still don't know why they didn't stick to LILO... (maybe to be able 
to 
>boot from a windows partition...) 
>

Back in R3 days there had been an outcry from the
GPL crowd (bigger than the one with lib_eletric_fence
a few months ago) with Be using some modified LILO
code without having given back the source. I think
(could be very wrong, seems so faaar now) that's
when they decided to come up with their own boot code.

Incidentally, already back then it had triggered incompatibility
issues (I was not able to boot my K6 w/o a floppy until
the R4 release I think) so it goes to show that this silly
IBM/PC legacy is a non trivial thing to cope with.

--
http://cdegea.free.fr/ | BeDev E-16870
"God exists, and she loves Bill" -- BMessage



Other related posts: