Difference between Linxubios native's Elfboot and Linuxbios native's Filo

Mathieu Deschamps mdeschamps at mangrove-systems.com
Fri Jun 4 10:54:00 CEST 2004

Hum.. I wasn't intended to be a media you use to rise such a polemic..

But from polemic can rise good things, and now that i'am part :

Le ven 04/06/2004 à 17:29, ron minnich a écrit :
> On 4 Jun 2004, Mathieu Deschamps wrote:
> > > The native ``filo'' is scheduled for deletion, it touches hardwaremain
> > > which it should not.  As implemented it is a maintenance nightmare and
> > > an implementation of policy and I refuse to support it, in the core of
> > > LinuxBIOS.  Until just a little while ago I thought it was much less
> > > intrusive so was not forcing the issue.
> > 
> > ok I understand.
> well, I am afraid I do not. 
> No one has contacted any of the other core maintainers of linuxbios and
> vetted this suggestion of scheduling components for deletion. This
> suggestion of deleting the embedded filo came out of left field, at least 
> to me. Major changes on this level need discussion!
> LinuxBIOS is a cooperative project. People add things from time to time
> that others do not like. Every other core member of this project has added
> software, at times, that I was not totally happy with, but I also have not
> deleted such software because it is the nature of shared open source
> projects that you can't keep everyone 100% happy all of the time. There
> are things in both V1 and V2 I dislike very much, but I recognize the
> right of authorship and the differences of opinion that come with
> different people writing different code.

I do agree... even if IMHO mainteners are not clearly identified.

> I should probably remind everyone here that this project was started by
> LANL, and that the control of this project remains at LANL. We are a
> non-profit, and I hope neutral, third party. I have had questions from
> time to time about whether this or that commercial entity has too much
> control of the project, and my response has always been: "Don't worry,
> calm down, LANL is neutral here and can make sure we play fair". This 
> type of query is serious. At one point I had a commercial company 
> hinting about legal action as they felt that another company was 
> holding back on releasing code to CVS. I was able to calm that one 
> down too, simply by pointing out the role that LANL plays. 

Trying to understand the hows and the whys, obvious I'am not targeted...

I hope so, or YOUR OpenSource banner you rise means nothing if,for
instance, features request can't be clearly openly answered, don't you
think ?
Anyway, I don't feel targeted concerning making majors changes :-)
nor I'am concerned on lack of concertation.  

For the rest, maybe i'am sensible but I have to say that commercial
entity do not all aim at same thing or at least does not behave all the
What I'am gaining with Linuxbios experience I'll try to give back in
somehow i could, don't you feel this ?.

> LANL has a duty to provide a level playing ground for all involved. We can
> not and will not allow deletions of subsystems deemed important by users
> without some amount of discussion first, followed by some sort of
> agreement. We had hoped to hash these issues out at the linuxbios summit
> but were unable to bring that meeting to fruition.
> Short form: I would ask all involved not to take actions that could lead 
> to consequences we will all regret. 
> ron

More information about the coreboot mailing list