If you're talking about this blog in particular, then my read between the lines was that 1) XMODEM is much easier to implement from scratch, and 2) the Linux Community recommends an XMODEM implementation for certain tasks, despite the fact that the implementation comes from a package that also supports ZMODEM. Lacking context for why that may be, that seems like a pretty dumb position. I am curious if anyone can dig up a defense of that rationale.
"First boot" protocols are often the simplest possible - and it may be the case that XMODEM is slightly "more available" in that realm than ZMODEM (often these boot protocols simply ignore checksums, etc on the client device to reduce code size needed).
