Slashdot Mirror

The only reason UEFI is overdue is not because they are slow in development. It's simply the fact that UEFI isn't an open standard. If UEFI was made an open standard every new computer in a month would all have UEFI.

So, how come every new computer doesn't have Open Firmware?

Open Firware has been around a lot longer than intel's EFI, and is used by Sun, IBM and Apple for their RISC boxes.

There is a free-as-in-speech implementation for the PeeCee called OpenBIOS.

It's implemented in FORTH.

There are sound economic reasons to use firmware that must be loaded at boot time rather than the slightly more expensive EEPROM, and a good technical reason as well. Ever since Intel's embarrassment over the Pentium's infamous bug, microprocessors have included the ability to load microcode patches at boot. Engineers learned from that experience that there must be a way to fix HW problems with firmware patches. If you have ever upgraded the firmware on a device only to have a power failure at the critical time that the EEPROM was being reflashed, you know what the technical advantage is.

Since the device itself may have information about its internal state that isn't disclosed to the CPU, there should be a mechanism for it to signal the host that it needs a fresh copy of its firmware overlay. I'm sure that systems programmers can think of a few other items to go on the list. Now all we need is a working group of the major players to come up with a standard. Maybe it could be done as an extension of Open Firmware.

http://www.openfirmware.org/

The basic premise is that the interface (eg. video card) contains a chip holding system-independet drivers.

It's been running on most commercial Unix systems with proprietary hardware for years.

When you say "Apple Bootrom" I beleive you actually ment:
http://www.openfirmware.org/

Which was originally created by Sun Microsystems, I believe.

IBM released a BSD-licensed version earlier for use in it's PowerPC, POWER, and Cell stuff. Make it more Linux-friendly.

Of course other manufacturers are free to use it in their own hardware. Of course they should keep in open and documented so as to not look like total jackasses and turn something that is supported by many OSes into something that they have to expensively modify and hide from everybody.

Start here (http://www.openfirmware.org/) What you have here is OpenFirmware a FORTH language based system that is really really powerful rather complete little OS. (There are examples of people doing windowing systems with it.)

Not sure you could change the icons on the disk on boot but almost positive you could change it later while running.

If you want to see this in great detail Do CMD O F on boot and you will get to the Openfirmware command line.

--jim

...and this is easy since the Developer Transition Platform is just running a generic Intel motherboard, generic Intel video chipset, an Intel Pentium 4 660 processor with HT, and a standard Intel BIOS (NOT a Phoenix BIOS as has been incorrectly reported elsewhere), but what will really be great is when someone makes a Virtual PC- or vmware-like product (perhaps even one of those products themselves) that is a virtual machine that runs under Mac OS X that allows running essentially any x86 OS at near-full speed, side by side with Mac OS X, without having to reboot.

Since it will be running on x86 hardware, processor instructions do not have to be emulated: they can run natively at near-full speed of the underlying hardware.

Further, though Apple will do nothing to stop users from installing Windows on production Intel-based Macintosh systems, it's likely that the production systems will evolve beyond the generic hardware that makes the Developer Transition Platform. Apple itself has said, "Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product." This means there may be additional specialized hardware for which Windows drivers and specialized support profiles will not be maintained by Apple. Of course, this isn't stopping anyone from making them, and Intel has said that Intel-based Macs will use commodity Intel processors, chipsets, and other support components, but it might not be quite as seamless as just popping in a Windows CD and installing (though it very well could be).

Let's also not forget that the production machines may not be - and likely will not be - using BIOS, rendering useless any such conventional PC multi-boot configurations. (But even with EFI or Open Firmware, there's no reason Apple couldn't maintain a robust multi-boot system.)

The point is that a virtual machine product could offer a supported configuration for x86 OSes, including Windows, Linux variants, etc., without the headache and hassle of rebooting into another OS. Sure, dual/multi-booting has benefits, and certainly this will be possible on even the production hardware, but most users would likely prefer a Virtual PC-like environment for running x86 OSes/applications without rebooting.

On this topic, one wonders if Microsoft will be the entity that releases this first. After all, they've already got Virtual PC for Mac, and Virtual PC for Windows (and Microsoft Virtual Server) is exactly this type of virtual machine product, albeit for Windows. On one hand, you can argue that for Microsoft, it's just another copy of Windows sold, so why should they care? But on the other hand, if they make a first-class VM product for Mac OS X that runs Windows (and other x86 OSes) seamlessly at near-full speed of the native hardware, it definitely assists in the sales of more machines designed primarily to run Mac OS X, which could be a poor strategic choice...

But even if Microsoft doesn't do it, let's hope someone like EMC does with vmware.

For more general information, see http://appleintelfaq.com/.

Apple has always used custom ROMs aboard which the most basic portion of Mac OS has always resided. To my knowledge, which I admit is a bit dated, even G5-based Macs use a proprietary ROM tailored for Mac OS.

Apple stopped using those ROMs several years ago, I believe when they made the transition from m68k to PPC. There's actually a ROM image of the old Mac toolbox ROM on the hard disk (I think Classic MacOS used it).

As for a BIOS, modern Macs have all used Open Firmware. Sun also uses this, and apparently IBM, if what I read earlier is in fact true. Sadly, I've read that Apple has stated the new Macs will NOT use Open Firmware. The dev systems are using a crappy Phoenix BIOS, but I'm hoping the actual released systems will use Intel's EFI, or something similar to Open Firmware.

by having a propriatary BIOS like apple does now

Actually, as of a couple years ago Apple has been using Open Firmware which is a standard for boot firmware. It's IEEE 1275.

OpenFirmware is a hell of a lot more featureladen than the PC's BIOS. While attempts to update BIOS are ongoing (see LinuxBIOS), a more effective shortterm solution is to emulate part of the functionality: boot off a livecd/floppy and network/fileshare over tcpip (nic or firewire). I'd advise u to look towards the always excellent Bart Lagerweij site

Funnier yet is that with a Mac, he's got forth running under the hood.

OpenFirmware is based on forth.

Ya, I actually agree. Kind of.

As I mentioned I think I was just blowing off some steam above and I probably just got trapped in DLL hell for a while there.

Most of what you say is true. Every programmer I know, myself included, has at least had the thought "why can't I get in there and redesign that my self." The GPL, Linux and open source is giving us that opportunity. And about time. Most companies have not found good ways to use this "new way" but it is starting to happen anyway. See the excitement/free publicity generated by several Linux based cable routers for example. Once a peice of hardware becomes 'hacked' and is declared hackable all kinds of new features, interfaces and uses are found. Why the hardware companies are not pursuing this is beyond me.

When I was looking for my own all-in-one remote I started to wonder why the major companies don't at least publish the remote codes on line. Then it occured to me that they would have to admit that this TV is just like that cheaper one but with our name on it. At least that's how it would look to the consumer. Or that's what the corp. execs are afraid might happen.

I long for the day when Linux (or it's equivalent (BSD?)) is on everything. I want the open source model to take over (Hey JVC\RCA\SONY\SAMSUNG, why worry about keeping your interface code secret. You are trying to sell HARDWARE not software!) At the very least why not have a hackable layer on top of the proprietary stuff? Or maybe something like http://www.openfirmware.org/ so if I really want too I can tell my TV to always return the volume to a rational level when I trun it on. (Stupid TV, can't change the volume or channel until it is all the way on! Two seconds of too loud and I hope I don't wake the wife! Everytime!)

On the other hand "UI's will be set by standards, shaped by client preferences, and not by random choices of individual hackers in hundreds of different companies." strikes me as being a pipe dream. Can you think of ANY product that meets this ideal? My parents had an RCA VCR in the early 80s (VCRs were newish then) which had a beautiful interface for recording shows. It worked great and even my mom could use it. I have never seen one since that came close to matching it. Even on other RCA stuff. Why? I wish I knew.

For some reason, I'm reminded of the platform-independent device drivers and boot code written in Forth in Open Firmware.

I don't know how useful a processor architecture-independent version of this would be (the compiler itself is pre-compiled for a specific processor, presumably!) but it does seem a rather cool hack. Maybe an ultra-inclusive version of Gentoo?

Why can't all the PC architecture vendors just get along and use OpenFirmware like most other sane architectures ?

If you're doing device drivers in an interpreted language, you're a fucking moron.

I guess that's why OpenFirmware never really caught on. The IEEE withdrew the standard for it, because those "fucking morons" at the OFWG didn't reaffirm the standard. Maybe they wised up to your level?

Two words: open firmware.

(And yes, this is probably why Mac cards work on a Sun.)

The specifications already exist, it's compatible with Apple and Sun hardware already, and is the direction the x86 world has stated they're planning to move in (aside from the DRM stuff). Seems like the obvious solution.

Open Firmware is at least non-proprietary, and is used by Sun and Apple on their computers

There is even an open source implementation of Open Firmware in the form of OpenBIOS.

There is also a commercial implementation of Open Firmware from FirmWorks.

I should note that that IBM RS/6000 machines also use Open Firmware.

Firmware? Like openfirmaware? Mods... you've been trolled... and let me feed it too... it's ATI/nVIDIA that don't make enough OF video cards... (and these you pay through your nose... ask any Apple customer)...

For those of you that haven't heard of OpenFirmware, it's basically the "BIOS" on Macs.

... and Sun machines (where it's called OpenBoot). And also the now-extinct CHRP and PReP (both PowerPC-based) platforms. And also on some ARM-based platforms. And on other platforms too, since there are two companies (this one and this one) that sell OpenFirmware development kits, which are typically used for embedded systems.

By the way, it is an IEEE standard: standard #1275. For more info, you might want to check out The OpenFirmware web site.

Say it with me: OpenFirmware

The fact that PC makers keep reinventing the wheel is annoying.

We already have a perfectly good standard, it's called Open Firmware.

I second that. Sun's OpenPROM (Sun's version of OpenFirmware) is one of those details that help make Sparcs kick ass systems. The BIOS started as a "poor man's firmware" with all device interaction simplified into a "standard" set of hardware. Thus no new drivers would ever be needed, thus a simple program/set of interrupts worked perfectly. Yet today, we're trying to make PCs into high end workstations. We could do that far more effectivly if the BIOS didn't get in the way.

I'm curious. Does anyone know a reason why a PC BIOS chip couldn't be swapped with an OpenFirmware chip? I assume there are a few details such as launch location (0x07F0 IIRC) which must be taken into account. Plus, many OSes may have difficulties if the BIOS is not present. However, both those problems are fixable. Does anyone know of other issues?

More Info:

OpenFirmware
Free OpenFirmware Implementation

Thanks, but mine is already free (and in a lot more production machines than yours).

Been there, done that. Open source firmware.

No. There is no BIOS. Macs use Open Firmware, which is (you've guessed it) open. The motherboard, however, is proprietory, which is one of the reasons why you can't build your own Mac.

This is what Apple's BIOS contains.

Anyway, what does anyone care? This is Slashdot, and the facts are irrelevant.

And why do I post at 0 when my karma is "excellent?"

Don't forget this stuff too.

You, sir, are an ignoramus. Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that anyone with more than 2 neurons to knock around in their skulls can install linux or netbsd or may other free OSes of their choice on Apple hardware. Additionally, OpenFirmware, which is the "BIOS" equivalent (although it has been more advanced since day one of its existence), is an open specification, based on a Forth like interpreter. Sun firmware conforms to the open firmware specification as well. Perhaps reading this may lead to some enlightenment, although the possibility of that ever occurring in your case seems remote.

On a PC, the firmware and hardware are open

Funny you should claim that. Apple uses OpenFirmware. x86 PCs don't.

The multitude of X86 cheap stuff doesnt work on these platforms. You probably pay 3-6 times what you'd normally pay for NICS and GFX cards. Apple does this all the time.

That's funny -- I just got back from CompUSA, where I paid all of $15 for a D-Link 100baseT NIC that will work with both Macs and PCs. The exact same trick works with most SCSI cards, several flavors of NVidia and ATI graphics cards, and Creative's Soundblaster line.

It's been many, many years since PCI cards for Macs cost substantially more than their PC counterparts. Like, almost a decade now.

And here's the thing: in many cases, those Mac cards will work unmodified in Linux-on-IBM/PPC servers and workstations. Also, occasionally, in Sun kit. Reason is, the "BIOS" in the PowerMacs, IBM's e-Servers and all of Sun's hardware is the same: OpenFirmware, AKA OpenBoot. Once you've set up your PCI card to support OpenBoot on one platform, it supports them all, and all the platform vendor has to do is write an OS-level driver for the card.

Isn't that to some extent what OpenBoot/Open Firmware does, allowing the hardware to pass architecture-independant initialization code to a Forth interpretor?

These boards won't contain a SWIM chip,

Apple power manager chip, Apple firmware and some other fiddly bits to boot

An OS X CD will indeed not boot such a machine, not because of some fiddly bits, but simply because it won't contain the drivers to handle the hardware. On the other hand, if Darwin can be booted on it this would require writing the relevant kexts, then installing OS X would require the same kind of tricks used for installing OS X on older machines..

Does anyone know if EFI is an OpenFirmware implementation? If it isn't, we don't want it! At the risk of sounding "with the crowd", OpenProm and other OpenFirmware implementations are so much nicer than all PC-BIOS concepts I've seen to date. Add a simple psuedo-GUI shell in front of the prompt, and you'll make users happy. Besides, your average user doesn't want to play in the BIOS anyway. But for those of us that have *real* networks to work off of, and have real needs in OS installation and hardware maintenece, nothing is better than OpenFirmware systems.

From ExtremeTech.com:
Compaq, on the other hand, was the first "PC clone" company. It's a term that sounds rather quaint today. At the time, though, Compaq sent a shudder through the industry. Compaq reverse-engineered the IBM PC BIOS without ever looking at the BIOS code. That was harder than you might think, because IBM actually published the assembly code for the PC BIOS in its technical reference manuals. Compaq was able to prove that its engineers never looked at the code or disassembled the original BIOS to come up with their own.

This would probably never happen in today's lawsuit-happy technology industry. Today's IBM might sue a Compaq just to run the clock out. But back then, IBM--perhaps still skittish after its own set of antitrust battles with the Justice Department--kept quiet. Compaq opened the floodgates, and a host of PC compatibles soon hit the streets, and the PC industry was never quite the same small, insular community.

This is nothing new. Administrators and other have known for a long thime that no machine is secure if someone has access to the physical machine.

Some machines are more secure then others. With Suns you can lock the PROM (== BIOS) so that even to boot you need to enter a password. You basically need to open up the box, pull the EEPROM chip, and put in another before you can even think about booting.

Alot harder then simply press DEL on bootup, wouldn't you say? :)

Try doing that with a regular PC BIOS. (I think Apple also uses OpenFirmware (IEEE 1275 as well.)

For information on Open Firmware see the Open Firmware home page.

Also, info about Sun and Apple implementations.

OpenFirmware (IEEE 1275) has a homepage. As does the IEEE working group. There's also a DMOZ/Google category.

openfirmware is usable rather than pretty?
because it proves that a firmware can be cooler without ASCII art or pain-in-the-arse GUI?

OpenFirmware, for those who don't know, is a solution adopted by Sun, Apple, and other big names. A partition on the hard disk contains the firmware which can be accessed through certain key combos. You can then give it commands to boot certain partitions and other such shit; stuff I'd like in my peecee's BIOS.

Check it out.

What a silly idea. PC vendors are obviously much too smart to fall for this.

Running something like VM-ware at this stage makes little sense. The goal of the BIOS is to serve as a bootstraping system for the actual OS. Putting the full OS would increase the cost of the BIOS system and decrease flexibility. The original Macintoshes had a large part of the OS in ROM, but this has been abandonned years ago (they use Openfirmware now).

Actually one Macintosh had a full boot disk in ROM (the Macintosh classic), you could mount this volume and boot from it. It contained a full OS including an Appleshare client so you could boot and run the computer without any disk...

Here's the official site & here's Sun's lesser-known public OF site ....

Yep. Sun use Open Firmware, as do Apple Macs. Open Firmware (or IEEE-1275 - those wacky IEEE names) uses Forth. Even if the rest of the machine is hosed you'll still be able to use forth. Err - great :-/

I believe (although I am not 100% certain, so take this with a grain of salt) that the reason Apple is credited in the RS6k boot screen is that Apple did the port of OpenBoot/OpenFirmware to the PowerPC/POWER platform.

PPC is proprietary.

The BIOS of the x86 world, in my opinion, is one of the reasons why we struggle but never quite reach a integrated architecture for PCs. Lord knows I've fought with quite a few of them, and hated having to remember to disable this in order to use that, with no guarantee that my change would work all the time.

Shouldn't our computers know what hardware it holds and configure itself automatically nowandays, with little to no user interaction? It would make all that "plug-and-play" stuff that's taken for granted on Macintosh systems, to site an example, true for my PC game box as well.

The technology is already here in the form of Open Firmware, which Apple uses as well as Sun. There is at least one company that has OF implementations for x86, but so long as Intel has a vendor lock on how motherboards are designed for their chips, I don't see this annoying and archaic method of maintaining a board going away any time soon.

OF is configurable enough for crazy whiz kids, if necessary. A better BIOS would make things a lot better for the OS and bring a better experience. Why can't we break out of the BIOS hell? Hadn't we learned the lessons from the Y2k-incompatibilities that some BIOS had, among other headaches?

you mean Open Firmware? =]

Macs boot via Open Firmware, which is neither evil nor proprietary.

You mean OpenFirmware?