Our kernel loader is called TOS. What is the point in
another one, if all it does is to select which kernel to load? E.g. if you have
a Falcon with an Afterburner and use this loader to load the correct kernel
depending on which CPU is enabled, you still need another tool to (de)activate
the Afterburner driver and FPU-emulator. Same with a CT60 - I would be surprised
if the kernel is the only thing that differs between a 030 and 060-setup. My
normal setup on the AB and Milan has no chance to work on a 14Mb 030, so a boot
manager is required anyway.
I'm not saying that automatic kernel-selection is a bad
idea. I'm saying that it's usefulness is limited when you're already using a
boot-manager. However, a boot-manager that can detect hardware and (de)activate
the proper kernel and kernel-modules automatically would be very useful 
Jo Even
From: Miro Kropacek
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 9:31 AM
Cc: mint_list
Subject: Re: [MiNT] Patch for xaloader.prg
Also known as a "boot manager" ;-) I've been using Superboot and XBoot since 1990 or so, it's one of the most useful tools I have. A open source boot manager would be great, but it should be able to do more than selecting kernels. To be useful, it must have all the functionality of current boot managers, otherwise it would be just another thing to slow down booting.
I think this isn't / shouldn't :) be Peter's goal -- kernel loader is
something totally different from things like XBoot etc... It's true our world
differs a little from Linux one (and therefore comparison with LILO, Grub etc
isn't 100% correct) but I'd prefer to be more kernel loader (as the last binary
in AUTO) than boot manager (as the first binary in AUTO).
--
MiKRO / Mystic Bytes
http://mikro.atari.org