[ECOS] RedBoot banner
Tue Feb 3 14:56:00 GMT 2009
> RedBoot already had a startup banner. U-boot has never had one I
It depends on what you call a startup banner. I personally don't mind name
of prog and copyright,
but anything beyond that non-technical is just unwanted cruft as far as I go.
> Maybe it might have been different if RedBoot hadn't had such a banner at
the point it was GPL'd.
It has a fairly minimal banner as it stands right now.
RedBoot(tm) bootstrap and debug environment [ROMRAM]
Copyright (C) 2000-2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Platform: PLATFORM NAME (ARM9)
RAM: 0x00000000-0x00800000, [0x0002fcc8-0x007dd000] available
FLASH: 0x04000000-0x041fffff, 4 x 0x8000 blocks, 126 x 0x20000 blocks
...would be lovely as far as I'm concerned. I would vote for doing away with
the 'certified'/'non-certified' thing as well,
since it's meaningless in practice to most people.
> I don't think it's a bad thing for users to be aware of RedBoot's licence
> anyway. If anyone was worried about read-only data (not RAM) footprint,
> there are probably many other areas of memory footprint that deserve
> attention, and you probably wouldn't want to use something as
> all-encompassing as RedBoot in any case ;).
OK but just to be clear, as far as I can tell right now, you guys are just
adding this because you
feel like it versus their being an actual requirement for having done so.
Certainly for myself, the consideration is not the memory footprint, it's the
fact that something
redundant is being added to the startup. Anyone who wants to see the details
of the license
can very easily go look at the GPL. I don't necessarily need to be reminded
of it every time the platform starts.
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss
More information about the Ecos-discuss