[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Framebuffer
From: |
Yoshinori K. Okuji |
Subject: |
Re: Framebuffer |
Date: |
Sat, 16 Oct 2004 13:40:12 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.6.1 |
On Saturday 16 October 2004 00:49, Marco Gerards wrote:
> That the mode is stored in the binary. IMHO it would be nice if it
> would be possible for the user to choose it somehow.
I'm afraid that you misunderstand the purpose of the Multiboot
Specification.
First of all, the spec is not about the user interface of a boot loader.
It only defines a boot protocol between a boot loader and an OS image.
It is not in the scope of the spec how the mode is chosen by the user.
This is quoted from the spec:
All of the graphics fields are enabled by flag bit 2. They specify
the preferred graphics mode. Note that that is only a _recommended_
mode by the OS image. If the mode exists, the boot loader should set
it, when the user doesn't specify a mode explicitly. Otherwise, the
boot loader should fall back to a similar mode, if available.
Do you still believe that it sucks? I hope you will examine the spec
before criticizing it.
Okuji
- Framebuffer, Marco Gerards, 2004/10/15
- Re: Framebuffer, Johan Grip, 2004/10/15
- Re: Framebuffer, Marco Gerards, 2004/10/15
- Re: Framebuffer, Johan Grip, 2004/10/15
- Re: Framebuffer, Marco Gerards, 2004/10/15
- Re: Framebuffer, Johan Rydberg, 2004/10/15
- Re: Framebuffer, Yoshinori K. Okuji, 2004/10/15
- Re: Framebuffer, Marco Gerards, 2004/10/15
- Re: Framebuffer,
Yoshinori K. Okuji <=
- Re: Framebuffer, Marco Gerards, 2004/10/16
Re: Framebuffer, Yoshinori K. Okuji, 2004/10/17