Writing an End to the Bio of BIOS?

Well if Microsoft's involved.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:51 · Score: 5, Funny

...it HAS to be bad, and an attempt to kill Linux.

That pretty much sums up the rest of the posts on this. Thanks, let's move on to the next story.

Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by GeckoFood · 2003-12-30 02:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

...it HAS to be bad, and an attempt to kill Linux.

There is no mention that this will be tailored to Windows in the article, but MS's hearty endorsement is a suspicious indicator of such. If so, would this simply become a matter of the BIOS not allowing anything but "acceptable" OSes to boot? That's where my nickel gets bet.

--
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:02 · Score: 0

Well, like with every other Linux conspiracy theory, you'd lose that nickel.

RTFA.

Intel believes promoting the specification as a standard will ultimately help PC manufacturers and please PC users by making computers start up more quickly; by improving the ability to manage PCs and servers remotely; and by helping hardware makers cut manufacturing and support costs--EFI PCs will be able to run diagnostic utilities, for example, before loading their operating system. ...

Still, some companies might see EFI as a way for Intel and Microsoft to push their own ideas for the future of PC design, McCarron said. There are "some concerns that it's being used to enable features that customers don't want," he said.

Intel says such suspicions are unfounded--companies that decide to go with EFI will be able to use it any way they like, by picking and choosing different features. EFI users don't necessarily have to work directly with Intel, either. They can gain access to the technology by working with companies like Insyde, or eventually use technology developed by the forum, once it gets started.
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by IWorkForMorons · 2003-12-30 03:08 · Score: 4, Funny

...would this simply become a matter of the BIOS not allowing anything but "acceptable" OSes to boot?

Actually, they're called "trusted" OSes. And if you can't trust Microsoft, then who can you trust?
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by SgtChaireBourne · 2003-12-30 03:26 · Score: 1

There is no mention that this will be tailored to Windows in the article, but MS's hearty endorsement is a suspicious indicator of such. If so, would this simply become a matter of the BIOS not allowing anything but "acceptable" OSes to boot? That's where my nickel gets bet.
Actually there is indication this is a move to integrate Windows with the BIOS and lock out non-MS operating systems and, eventually, packages.

--
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by gstevens · 2003-12-30 04:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

You guys are all forgetting one thing: Intel is involved, and they have a lot invested in Linux. There are millions of x86 boxes out there running Linux instead of Sun, IBM, HP, etc boxes running some flavor of Unix. Intel knows this, and they like it. They're not stupid...
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by October_30th · 2003-12-30 04:33 · Score: 1

Uh... where exactly does it say in that ZD article that non-MS operating systems and packages could be locked out?

--
The owls are not what they seem
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by hitmark · 2003-12-30 04:38 · Score: 1

personaly i trust anything but microsoft...

yes i know the post above is most likely sarcasm, and yes i dont realy care...

--
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by Necron69 · 2003-12-30 04:39 · Score: 4, Informative

Given the bias on Slashdot, I'm assuming most of you don't know that Linux already runs on Itanium boxes with EFI. All of HP's Itanium boxes have EFI on them, so it doesn't have anything to with banning the use of Linux.

- Necron69
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 05:16 · Score: 1, Interesting

M$ could have another agenda besides the age-old Linux conspiracy. If a new BIOS spec is hashed out, it could be an opportunity for Bill to force users to upgrade to the next version of Windows. If you upgrade your motherboard or buy a new PC, you will once again have to pony up for the M$ tax.
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by nkpatel · 2003-12-30 05:18 · Score: 2, Informative

That is true. We develop these Itanium systems, and all of my boxes are multi-boot Windows, Linux, and HP-UX.
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 06:28 · Score: 0

Actually Linux is a UNIX clone, NOT a clone of any Microsofts "interpretations" [poor copy] of other people's products which would make Linux a copy of a copy ... I DON'T THINK SO!
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by SpaceLifeForm · 2003-12-30 06:34 · Score: 2

RTFA.
A deal with BIOS maker Phoenix Technologies would allow the operating system to directly control hardware. It also raises concerns over who controls the software in PCs
Bold added.
Again, RTFA.
If you still don't 'get it', then you should not be allowed on a computer or you are a Microsoft astroturfer.
Please install GNU/Linux and try again.

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by October_30th · 2003-12-30 06:50 · Score: 0, Flamebait

allow the operating system to directly control hardware.
So, you can buy the specs? What's the problem? I'm sure IBM, RedHat or SuSE can afford to license it.
Sounds like your Lunix fanatic's paranoia of all things commercial is showing...
If you still don't 'get it', then you should not be allowed on a computer or you are a Microsoft astroturfer.
Ah, yes, that's the way to attract more people to try out Linux. You are a recent open source convert, now aren't you?

--
The owls are not what they seem
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by rnturn · 2003-12-30 07:27 · Score: 1

The article did mention that one company has already licensed the technology. Will this standard wannabee be free from steep licensing fees and nondisclosures? Who can tell but if Microsoft is involved I imagine that it will be difficult if not impossible for a Linux distribution like Debian to deal with this; Microsoft will fight for either secrecy, patents, or gigantic licensing fees. Will Linus Torvalds and others be able to write for a kernel that has a non-public hardware interface? Hmm, I'm smelling trouble brewing. The good thing about this is that Intel doesn't much care whose software runs on their chips. I suspect they will push for this to be an opened up standard that doesn't have a big monetary requirement in order to be able to write software that's compatible with it. Intel, show some backbone and tell any software company that tries to make this proprietary to take a flying leap.

--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 07:49 · Score: 0

Even better.. The EFI specs are completely freely available, and so it a lot of EFI SOURCE CODE (right, Intel made most of it Open Source)
And they try to get EFI support into the Intel x86 kernels now. Yes, Intel wrote that code. They do want that people use Linux on it.
And all this just because MS is not speaking the last word, but the customers are.
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by FxChiP · 2003-12-30 07:52 · Score: 1

So, you can buy the specs? What's the problem? I'm sure IBM, RedHat, or SuSe can afford to license it.
Uh, yeah. Except for one little problem... if Microsoft controls the spec, there's going to be a license on it that prevents it from being introduced into the Linux kernel. And furthermore, do you really think Microsoft would license the spec to the competition (i.e. Red Hat Linux)? Well, I suppose they'd have to (otherwise they'd be found to have a monopoly, again), but then the license turns into the catch-all. Damn, I hope I'm not giving them ideas.

Ah, yes, that's the way to attract more people to try out Linux. You are a recent open source convert, now aren't you?
Err, it doesn't matter how long you've been using open source (though I've used it, albeit somewhat on/off, for a year or two)... and to the best of my knowledge, he wasn't even advocating Linux.
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by heatseeka · 2003-12-30 08:11 · Score: 1

Yeah. I bet this will come out about the time Longhorn will be debuting. Coincidence? I think not.
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 09:11 · Score: 0

Impossible! You mean this wild, unfounded conjecture isn't true, just like every single headlining /. paranoid story about MS creating technical hurdles for Linux?

Golly, I'm SHOCKED.
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 09:13 · Score: 0

Not just HP's Itanium boxes - all Itanium boxes run EFI!
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by October_30th · 2003-12-30 09:14 · Score: 1

if Microsoft controls the spec, there's going to be a license on it that prevents it from being introduced into the Linux kernel.
So, we're back to the original post. Where does it say that Microsoft's going to wield such control over the license? Nowhere. I thought it was the BIOS manufacturer who owned the license. Furthermore, do you really think Microsoft would resort to such drastic measures when they're on probation for their alleged monopoly?
I find it kind of sad that certain people seem to be obsessed with the idea that "if Microsoft's involved, it's evil, evil, evil!".
PS. What is it with Slashdot today? I keep getting "500 Internal Server Error" all the time.

--
The owls are not what they seem
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by Rakarra · 2003-12-30 11:47 · Score: 1

Furthermore, do you really think Microsoft would resort to such drastic measures when they're on probation for their alleged monopoly?
Why would they stop? The anti-trust trial barely slowed them down, and the appeal resulted in a decision that basically read as "don't do that again, or I'll give you another stern look."
PS. What is it with Slashdot today? I keep getting "500 Internal Server Error" all the time.
I used to have troubles connecting to Slashdot all the time (timeouts on their end), but recently it's been stable for me..
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by FxChiP · 2003-12-30 12:57 · Score: 1

So, we're back to the original post. Where does it say that Microsoft's going to wield such control over the license? Nowhere. I thought it was the BIOS manufacturer who owned the license. Furthermore, do you really think Microsoft would resort to such drastic measures when th ey're on probation for their alleged monopoly?
On slashdot, you lose all credit for calling it an "alleged" monopoly. It kinda screams "Astroturfer". :P

But anyway... perhaps the BIOS manufacturer does own the license; however, in this case, it could very possibly be Intel who owns the license because they're introducing the technology (and we both know that they've probably patented it by now). I think Intel's also making the motherboards that will have EFI on them. I guess it should also be mentioned that EFI isn't BIOS, and BIOS isn't a motherboard, but that has little bearing on anything. :)

And if Microsoft has a hand in more than 50% of the specification for EFI, what's to stop them from entering an agreement for the other members of the standards body that says that only they can publish their half or more of the spec? Then you enter into the whole thing about them putting up an agreement that says you can't disclose the information documented on their site, etc... (however, I doubt this will happen - the other members could always tell Microsoft to take a hike).

In the article, it doesn't say that Microsoft will wield control over the license, but does that specifically mean they won't?
I find it kind of sad that certain people seem to be obsessed with the idea that "if Microsoft's involved, it's evil, evil, evil!"
Considering the last flat quarter, Microsoft seems to be backed into a corner. Their major threat is Linux. You don't back an animal (or a human, before you start saying that I'm calling Microsoft an animal) into a corner because it will fight for its life. I fully expect Microsoft to do the same thing.

Paranoia is invalid, most of the time, but being paranoid and safe is better than not being paranoid and screwed over. (I couldn't think of anything else)
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 14:28 · Score: 0

Microsoft and/or Intel are behind most of the PC standards, actually. Besides which, the people running firms like Dell, HP and IBM aren't stupid. They won't adopt EFI if it means they lose more control over their businesses (e.g. losing the option of selling systems running Linux), ergo it won't.

EFI is no more an evil conspiracy than, say, ACPI, which is the Intel/Microsoft/Toshiba standard that enables operating systems to manage the power consumption of PCs (which is essential on notebooks). The previous power-management standard for the same thing, APM, which was much worse, was developed by Microsoft and Intel too.
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by Your+Anus · 2003-12-30 15:02 · Score: 1

Indeed. I believe Intel is already working with kernel developers on EFI. I see posts on EFI in the linux-kernel mailing list archives. I think this won't affect Linux much at all, although I don't know whether it will be able to take over EFI calls the same way it does BIOS calls.

--

In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 16:41 · Score: 0

I think the term you're looking for is "It's better to be paranoid than Naive"
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by skuzzlebutt · 2003-12-30 17:08 · Score: 1

companies that decide to go with EFI will be able to use it any way they like, by picking and choosing different features

Couldn't find docs or linkies to support, but I seem to remember that those were the claims of ACPI, and that played hell on many a 'nix laptop for a full one-dot kernel version, i.e., hardware not working because there was no good software IRQ handler, sleep-mode problems, kernel lockups, etc...any takers?

--
My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by rifter · 2003-12-30 17:51 · Score: 1

...it HAS to be bad, and an attempt to kill Linux.

That pretty much sums up the rest of the posts on this. Thanks, let's move on to the next story.

Well, considering that Microsoft has promised to develop a DRM bios that does not allow LInux to bot, and this bios replacement is developed by Intel and Microsoft who vehemently opposed Open Firmware (because it makes it easier to boot other or multiple OS's) it is likely the case that there is something afoot here. Besides, at minimum it will displace the last two bios manufacturers (Phoenix and AMI) therefore utterly destroying an entire market. Typical Microsoft behavior. (And they won't care, either. IN a recent interview, Bill Gates said "Phoenix is still around?" as though he thought they should be long gone by now.
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by rifter · 2003-12-30 17:54 · Score: 1

"companies that decide to go with EFI will be able to use it any way they like, by picking and choosing different features"

Couldn't find docs or linkies to support, but I seem to remember that those were the claims of ACPI, and that played hell on many a 'nix laptop for a full one-dot kernel version, i.e., hardware not working because there was no good software IRQ handler, sleep-mode problems, kernel lockups, etc...any takers?

ACPI is still a problem on all platforms, but especially the open source ones where many of the features still do not work at all and acpi causes myriad problems.
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by cayenne8 · 2003-12-30 18:54 · Score: 1

"Paranoia is invalid, most of the time, but being paranoid and safe is better than not being paranoid and screwed over. "
'Hey, when everyone is out to get you.......
Paranoid is just good thinking
-with apologies to Dr. Johnny Fever (WKRP in Cincinnati)

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... by FxChiP · 2003-12-31 13:14 · Score: 1

Besides which, the people running firms like Dell, HP and IBM aren't stupid. They won't adopt EFI if it means they lose more control over their businesses (e.g. losing the option of selling systems running Linux), ergo it won't.
Do you mean systems that can run Linux, or systems that actually do? I don't recall those companies selling systems that have Linux installed and running by default, but times change.
EFI is no more an evil conspiracy than, say, ACPI, which is the Intel/Microsoft/Toshiba standard that enables operating systems to manage the power consumption of PCs (which is essential on notebooks).
EFI on its own isn't much of a conspiracy in itself, as I might have previously thought, but the way it could be used is. I'd definitely hope that you'd be able to turn the DRM crap in it off, though, if they use it to include DRM in PCs...

But I've heard success stories of Linux booting within EFI, so it can't be too bad. :P

OF? by ChristTrekker · 2003-12-30 02:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why not just use Open Firmware?

--

Constitutionally Correct

Re:OF? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:58 · Score: 1, Funny

Why would Intel want to prevent people from booting into Linux?

What's stopping them from doing that now?

God forbid PCs should boot up more quickly, it MUST be a conspiracy theory to snuff out Linux. Now readjust your tin foil had and get back to whining about every new development at MS.
Re:OF? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:58 · Score: 0

because we're not all using mac's. hello. welcome to the real world. When you pay me to use a PPC, THEN I will use open firmware
Re:OF? by AKAImBatman · 2003-12-30 03:03 · Score: 4, Informative

because we're not all using mac's. hello. welcome to the real world.

Exactly. Because most of us are using UltraSparcs and other Unix machines that use OpenFirmware. Hello! McFly?!

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:OF? by dasmegabyte · 2003-12-30 03:04 · Score: 2

Oh sure. Like all the high paid engineers at Intel and Microsoft are going to tell their bosses, "No let's not reinvent the wheel, people on the internet have already got a solution." They're going to discount it as much as possible...and their bosses will agree. The whole crux of the Microsoft fight against Linux and Open Source is that it invalidates one of the essential marketing idioms the software giant relies on: that market share alone is enough reason to trust the expertise of a software company.

Besides, if they went with an Open Firmware solution, ANYBODY could write one. Which means vendors would go with the cheapest solution. Which, if Phoenix Bios is any indication, would be complete crap.

Me, I'm all for an alternative...especially one that will tie in to the OS and allow for quicker boots, integration WITH the OS for boot management, allow for runtime management of boot devices (to power your sound card on and off without rebooting for when Midi "hangs," etc)...so long as they keep out the DRM and the rest of the crap.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:OF? by MoneyT · 2003-12-30 03:05 · Score: 1

What does running a mac have to do with using Open Firmware?

--
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Re:OF? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:06 · Score: 0

Openfirmware has me worries. As one of the founding groups, SCO has its finger in THAT pie too. What's to stop SCO from butting their ass in and requiring a change in the spec that only allows approved operating systems to run in OF?

I think if OF were implemented in current PCs, you wouldn't see any motherboards being sold now that could boot Linux from OF
Re:OF? by squiggleslash · 2003-12-30 03:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

My guess is that OpenFirmware is seen as cryptic. The deal with current BIOSes is that you hold down DEL and up comes a nice, friendly, menu where you can configure anything in the BIOS you want.
Whereas most people used to OpenFirmware know the default interface involves writing things like:
1 1 + dup dup + dup + + base !
...and that's just to get it to give you numbers in decimal.
Not that there aren't ways around this, obviously. For starters, there's no reason why DEL can't just bring up a GUI (or arrow-keys/ESC/Enter text interface), it doesn't have to bring up a command line. The point though is that OpenFirmware is seen as hard, it has a serious image problem.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:OF? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:15 · Score: 1, Informative

Duh, the Mac's pre-boot system is Open Firmware!
Re:OF? by AKAImBatman · 2003-12-30 03:16 · Score: 3, Informative

What's to stop SCO from butting their ass in and requiring a change in the spec that only allows approved operating systems to run in OF?

What's to stop all the actual OF members from either voting SCO down or ignoring their spec changes? Like it or not, SCO/Caldera *used* to be a reasonable company in the computing world. It should then come as no surprise that their on many technology standard boards. But when you consider the fact that they are probably the only OpenFirmware member that doesn't have an implementation (Their market is Intel after all), their ideas probably won't carry much weight.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:OF? by cloudmaster · 2003-12-30 03:18 · Score: 4, Funny

That's a mature, existing standard. If consumer PCs were meant to have OF, they would've gotten it a long time ago. Therefore, a new "standard" should be developed and left undocumented.
Re:OF? by droleary · 2003-12-30 03:20 · Score: 1

Besides, if they went with an Open Firmware solution, ANYBODY could write one. Which means vendors would go with the cheapest solution. Which, if Phoenix Bios is any indication, would be complete crap.

Yeah, but at least we could brag that our crap system, which we took the trouble to assemble ourselves after hours of research and ordering from dozens of different part sources, cost a few bucks less than a Mac. Keep sight of what's important here!
Re:OF? by Hes+Nikke · 2003-12-30 03:32 · Score: 1

probably because macs have run OF since 1995.

--
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
Re:OF? by colinleroy · 2003-12-30 03:44 · Score: 2, Informative

Same for Sun and other archs. That's a standard.

--
blah
Re:OF? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:48 · Score: 0

Well, my Motorola Powerstack has a menu much nicer and easier to use than any Ami Winbios or Awkward or Phoenix system.
It'd be easy to write an interface lookalike for OpenFirmware that makes you think you use one of the above. But who would want that.

and btw.. if one ever needs to switch to decimal output in an openfirmware system, i'd rather use
d# 10 base !
or just the word
decimal

I don't say MS Word is complex just because I try to print every single letter itself and glueing them together afterwards ;)
Re:OF? by dasmegabyte · 2003-12-30 03:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hey, I know how important bragging rights are. I've sunk several thousand dollars into restoring a 1973 Volkswagen Super Beetle. There's nothing like a slow, loud, underpowered, kind-of-gay rolling coffin that you built yourself!

I support hobby computing. But I don't fool myself into thinking that what works for us nerds will work for the majority of the population. Most people are better off having Microsoft make their decisions for them. Hell, my PC runs windows...because in the time it would have taken me to get Linux running on it, I could have sanded down two quater panels and replaced a seat.

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Re:OF? by Saeed+al-Sahaf · 2003-12-30 04:00 · Score: 1

Me, I'm all for an alternative...especially one that will tie in to the OS and allow for quicker boots, integration WITH the OS for boot management, allow for runtime management of boot devices (to power your sound card on and off without rebooting for when Midi "hangs," etc)...so long as they keep out the DRM and the rest of the crap.
Let see... [tinfoil hat] This is being driven by Microsoft and their water-boy Intel, so I wonder what OS will have the advantage in this firmware solution? And no DRM? Haven't you heard the beating drums of both Intel and their daddy Microsoft? You think any other OS will get a fair shake on this deal? [/tinfoil hat]

--
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Re:OF? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:02 · Score: 0

The OpenBIOS project, implementing a free version of OpenFirmware, has been proceeding quickly in the last few months.. Go have a look at www.openbios.org
Re:OF? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:08 · Score: 0

I used to get terribly confused with statements like "base ?" and "10 base !". Takes a while to figure out what you're doing wrong, especially after a few beers...
Re:OF? by lintux · 2003-12-30 04:15 · Score: 1

And what about my SPARC5 machine which runs OF too? I don't know how old the thing is, but probably older than a 1995-Mac.
Re:OF? by SpaceJunkie · 2003-12-30 04:26 · Score: 1

I certainly agree with this. Let me say - the day I can flash my Pheonix/ and AMI bios firmware with a system which a) Works B) Works and C) Is user friendly (IE a text mode gui) - then I will never look back...

Surely the works and works bits depend far too much on motherboard and chipset manufacturers playing ball - which some are still yet to do with software drivers for linux - let alone open firmware. How much are Intel and AMD co-operating on this initiative? Intel are not the only processor manufacturer...

--
OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
Re:OF? by SpaceJunkie · 2003-12-30 04:38 · Score: 1

But you missing it. The entire, and only point is the "DRM and the rest of the crap". By doing this, MS will be able to stop you using or installing un-sanctioned software. And also, making sure you cannot install software on non-compliant hardware. Unless you want to be left behind, you would have to upgrade. But then - maybe there will be hardware manufacturers who realise that there is a large community who will not buy into such things - and sell an alternative.

That will mean that the open-source movement will have to keep its initiative to remain the alternative in a competative way - while the platforms windows and linux run on diverge. Of course maybe by attempting it- Intel and Microsoft could be nailing their own coffins - lets all hope so.. DRM in the BIOS firmware is a step too far in the wrong direction- it certainly would *never* go in a computer of mine.

I suggest the contributors to open-cores.org start working, so by the time this becomes a reality- we have alternatives, and companies like VIA and ALI fly in the face of such blatently deliberate anti-competative moves.

--
OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
Re:OF? by hitmark · 2003-12-30 04:47 · Score: 2, Funny

like someone else pointed out, the real hog in booting is the os, evne linux takes some time in getting going. but atleast there one can at a glance see what is holding up the traffic but in windows your just looking at the gray and blue or fisher-price boot screen and waiting for that loadbar to hit 100%. what feels faster?

--
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Re:OF? by jswitte · 2003-12-30 05:00 · Score: 1

"Image problem"? "Seen as hard"? Wait - for must people, they aren't even supposed to have to *think* about the BIOS (or OF, or ACPI, or EFI, or whatever they come up with next)

It seems to me (of course, I use a Mac, and don't hack with the firmware), that if you have a computer that just works, or where you don't have to worry about DLL Hell, where you don't have to worry about a driver installing into the wrong IRQ , the typical (non-Slashdot-reading) end-user shouldn't care (or even know) about what's used to bootstrap the machine.
Re:OF? by MarcQuadra · 2003-12-30 05:00 · Score: 2, Informative

Well if you think about it OF really makes needing that GUI unnescessary. On an OF machine the BIOS is a lot smarter, it can 'make decisions' better than an 8-bit PC BIOS can, decisions like memory timings, disk configurations, network booting, etc. I've got both kinds of machines right here (OF Macs and PC-BIOS PCs) and I can tell you it's a LOT nicer to just trust your machine than to have to go in dicking with memory timings and FSB multipliers, etc. when you install new hardware. Also, the number one function of the BIOS GUI is to switch boot devices, which Apple has already solved on 'newworld' machines (all Macs since iMac'97) with OF, just hold the option key at boot and you get a nice GUI with all detected bootable partitions, icons showing their OS and partition name.

--
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
Re:OF? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 05:32 · Score: 0

> Besides, if they went with an Open Firmware solution, ANYBODY could write one.

Anyone can write an EFI solution too. Intel has released BSD-licenced reference code.

What about Open Firmware makes it immune to DRM hardware?
Re:OF? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 05:34 · Score: 0

Why not just use Open Firmware?

Here's the anonymous, non-flamebait, non-troll answer: (drumroll) Because it's not backwards-compatible with PC BIOS.
Re:OF? by IAmAMacOSXAddict · 2003-12-30 05:59 · Score: 1

Because that would be too easy and would not allow Micro$loth to "Own" the rights so it could force everyone else to make the changes that M$ wants.

--
MacOSX, because making *NIX better is a lot better than waiting for Micro$loth to fix Windows
Re:OF? by Hes+Nikke · 2003-12-30 08:42 · Score: 1

i was replying to the original query of What does running a mac have to do with using Open Firmware?

that query didn't say anything about SPARCs, but i wouldn't be surprised if SPARCs have been running OF since OF was 1st created, since sun came up with the spec and all :)

--
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
Re:OF? by CustomDesigned · 2003-12-30 09:29 · Score: 1

Our OpenFirmware systems always brought up a GUI by default (Motorola and Bull PowerPC systems). I had to dig through lots of manuals to find the secret codes to get to the commandline interface.
Once there, the Forth system is cool. I wish you could allocate a small partition with a simple filesystem where OF could store your user written diagnostic verbs.
Re:OF? by Ben+Hutchings · 2003-12-30 09:33 · Score: 1

A PC BIOS is not "8-bit"; some parts of it run in "16-bit" real mode and others in "32-bit" protected mode. Besides which, the archaic interface between OS and BIOS doesn't restrict what the BIOS can do internally. A modern PC BIOS is smart enough to configure pretty much everything automatically. The BIOS setup program lets you fiddle with bus timings because some people like to push their hardware, but there's no need to do that.

I agree that the boot order configuration is crappy and there's no good reason for that. It would be simpler to have a setting for a default boot device and the option to override that on a one-time basis, as on the Mac (or the Amiga).

Boot device selection is really quite weird on the PC because the BIOS spec says the BIOS will only boot from the first floppy or hard drive. If the BIOS boots from any other device it has to change the drive number mapping.
Re:OF? by calidoscope · 2003-12-30 19:26 · Score: 1

Why not just use Open Firmware?
Think Sun might be smart enough to put Open Firmware on their soon to be released Opteron boxes? One can only hope...

--
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.

So? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

So what happens when Intel and Microsoft decide they don't want anymore competition?

Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:55 · Score: 0

1. They can make that decision, but they can't do anything about it

2. They both have an overwhelming share of their markets because none of their competition has decided to "not suck."

I think their competition should worry more about #2. Then they might get somewhere.
Re:So? by fitten · 2003-12-30 03:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Intel's main concern is selling chips. If the chip runs MS Windows, fine... that's a sold chip. If the chip runs Linux, fine... that's a sold chip. No matter the OS you run on the Intel chip, you *still bought an Intel chip*.

Why would Intel *not* want another OS to run on an Intel platform? There is no amount of tinfoil that can justify it.
Re:So? by DrEldarion · 2003-12-30 04:10 · Score: 1

Nothing, since people always have the option of using AMD and Linux.
Re:So? by ArsonSmith · 2003-12-30 04:10 · Score: 1

Could it be because running linux on an Intel chip gives you the ability to move to another chip easily. (typing this from my Sparc system).

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:So? by whereiswaldo · 2003-12-30 04:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why would Intel *not* want another OS to run on an Intel platform?

You forgot the other side of the equation pretty quickly.

Microsoft, the largest software manufacturer in the world, conviced monopolist, and vendor of the OS which runs on over 90% of the desktop computers in the world, could stipulate to Intel that they do not allow 'other' operating systems to run on their chips. Or, that they require a certain technology in the software for the chip to function, which Microsoft conveniently protects using patents and/or DMCA.
Now you see how easy it is. No tin foil required.
Re:So? by fitten · 2003-12-30 04:37 · Score: 1

So... Microsoft says "don't let other OS's run on your chip or else we'll...." what exactly? Microsoft will make it so that Windows *doesn't* run on Intel chips anymore?
Re:So? by whereiswaldo · 2003-12-30 04:46 · Score: 1

It doesn't even have to be that drastic. All it takes is for Microsoft to heavily advertise that "Windows runs best on AMD". There are lots of ways for MS to get what they want. This is far from conspiracy theory - look at their past behaviour.
Re:So? by sreid · 2003-12-30 06:19 · Score: 1

i do't think the feds would let Ms get away with that
Re:So? by whereiswaldo · 2003-12-30 06:47 · Score: 1

i do't think the feds would let Ms get away with that

Look what they've already gotten away with. Review their history and you will see very clearly.
Re:So? by SpaceLifeForm · 2003-12-30 07:17 · Score: 1

i do't think the feds would let Ms get away with that
Well do you or don't you?
I guess you were referring to those Bush feds, so you must have meant that they *would* let MS get away with it.

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

Oops. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:52 · Score: 0

Evil Fucking Idea, anyone? Well, actually it's probably a great idea, and one that's been long overdo, but seriously. Face it. The actual implementation is more than likely going to stink. Don't throw those old legacy parts out anymore. O_o

EFI sucks by SuperQ · 2003-12-30 02:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

I have several IA-64 systems at work. IA-64 requires EFI (part of the intel spec). It's a major pain in the ass.. you have to have a dos fat formated filesystem to store bootloaders, and other utilities as a primary partition.. besides the fact that they changed the normal dos partition format for EFI. I wish they would have just ported OpenBoot.

Re:EFI sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Licensing issues straight up then FAT = paid license nowdays :D
Re:EFI sucks by Dr+Caleb · 2003-12-30 03:07 · Score: 1

Just from reading the specs, it sounds like MCA (MicroChannel Architecture) on the old IBM PS/2's. They had to have driver discs for hardware to work, IIRC they drivers were stored on a special partition as well. Good precursor to Plug&Play, but a PITA.

--
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Re:EFI sucks by zdzichu · 2003-12-30 03:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

EFI sucks. Even Linus says so.

--
:wq
Re:EFI sucks by morganjharvey · 2003-12-30 03:18 · Score: 1

That really sounds like what I have to do to boot linux on my mac. It's not that much of a pain in the ass, unless of course you have to do the whole "reformat after filling 80 GB" thing.
From the way I understood what this was trying to accomplish, it seems that openfirmware has a couple of years jump on them.
Perhaps it's just a difference between you and me, but I find that making specific partitions on a cleanly formatted drive not so much of a pain in the ass, considering that I have to wipe the drive to begin with.
Let me sober up and I'll argue with you some more.
Re:EFI sucks by NecroBones · 2003-12-30 03:44 · Score: 1

I also wonder how long it'll take for someone to write some really nasty EFI-infecting viruses/worms/trojans. The results oculd be quite scary/amusing.

--
I have not lost my mind... it's backed up on disk somewhere!
Re:EFI sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:46 · Score: 0

Thanks for the link, he sums thing up so nicely!
Re:EFI sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:57 · Score: 0

I imagine this is more a result of EFI's late addition to the Itanium technology. It's clearly a bit of a hack at this point. I mean, Microsoft and Intel are STARTING to organize a forum to discuss BEGINNING to stardardize it. It's clearly a fresh technology that will become more seamless in a couple years.
Re:EFI sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:00 · Score: 0

hmm, if a fat filesystem is needed m$ can charge money for all pcs with this technology.
Re:EFI sucks by Burnon · 2003-12-30 04:04 · Score: 1

It sounds like the EFI spec by far predates Microsoft's intent to license the FAT patents. I wonder if Intel knew that as the spec was being developed? Also, I wonder if the use of FAT for the filesystem is mandated by the spec, or if the EFI framework is extensible enough to allow the use of a different filesystem.

Hopefully FAT is just an implementation detail for the particular board being described, and not something we'll all be stuck with in the future. If FAT is part of the spec, companies like IBM had better start lobbying to get the spec changed before it gets standardized.
Re:EFI sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:15 · Score: 0

The fact that EFI needs to know or care about the partition format of the hard drive just boils my blood. It just reminds me of a certain BIOS that acted similarly, which pissed me off.
Re:EFI sucks by superyooser · 2003-12-30 04:21 · Score: 1

Linus says: Face it: firmware bytecode is a total braindamage. [...] as long as it's some kind of binary (and byte code is binary, don't make any mistake about it), it's going to always be broken.
I guess I'm missing something, but isn't this precisely what Linus was working to do for Transmeta's Crusoe processor?
Re:EFI sucks by Ethicator · 2003-12-30 05:08 · Score: 2, Informative

If EFI requires a FAT fs, what are the implications now that M$ are planning on charging a licensing fee for any product what uses a FAT fs ?
Re:EFI sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 05:14 · Score: 0

Transmeta is the only firm using the machine language used in their processor lines. Therefore, if there are bugs in the language implementation, it's not as difficult to overcome. OTOH, when the language is defined to be generated and used by several third parties, you get multiple implementations, and multiple interpretations, thus multiple things to monitor for bugs and misinterpretations of the specifications.
Linus proposes then to use the x86 machine code as the bytecode used in EFI. This "bytecode" has been used since decades, and thus is more reliable than a freshly defined code.
While I agree with the "don't fix it if it's not broken" approche of Linus, I'd remind that besides giving an edge to the x86 compatible CPUs makers (and do they need it ?), the x86 instruction set is the most bastardised one of the computer industry. I'd rather choose a more elegant instruction set, (like the PPC one).
Re:EFI sucks by tjw · 2003-12-30 05:19 · Score: 1

From the kerneltraffic article:
If a card can travel from system to system, that also means it can cross processor architecture boundaries too - there are Itanium Family and IA-32 family machines with PCI slots that are electrically compatible and the expectation is that the cards work equally well in both system types. For the Option ROM content though that presents a dilemma - what do you carry in the ROM?? Native compiled IA-32 code and also native compiled Itanium family code perhaps. Well that works, the PCI spec says a ROM container can have multiple images; we take advantage of that now to build cards that carry a 16-bit conventional ROM and an EFI driver together and there are also Forth images out there for SPARC and Power systems.
Ack! One might think Intel is pushing this standard in order to keep PCI cards from working on x86-64.

Storing unchangble binary drivers for each (some) architectures on PCI cards just seems like a horrible idea.

--

XJS*C4JDBQADN1.NSBN3*2IDNEN*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-UB E-TEST-EMAIL*C.34X
Re:EFI sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 06:09 · Score: 0

Of course this is related! M$ wants a surcharge on every damned PC made. Of course they may forego money for control; i.e. you may use our FAT for nothing, as long as you only use it for what we say you should.
Re:EFI sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 06:21 · Score: 0

Well, this does suck! Unless they provide a separate Flash filesystem that I can write protect, I am not gonna run this! Damnit, the second least reliable component in any of my systems has been the hard disk.

I routinely get Dell and HP systems that have a mini-partition at the beginning of the hard disk to hold "diagnostic and recovery software". Translation: spyware. I always clean that off and go with a clean OS install. All they give me is the damned license!

On the other hand, I do recognize the need for better hardware support in the BIOS. Part of the reason M$ and Linux take over so much direct hardware control is because basic BIOS functionality is so shitty that it exacts a huge performance hit to use only BIOS control. Originally, differences in the hardware were to be taken care of in the BIOS so the OS didn't have to deal with it.I don't think that this is the answer, however!
Re:EFI sucks by SpaceLifeForm · 2003-12-30 07:21 · Score: 1

Microsoft will get some of their marketing money back from Intel.
Microsoft does have cash flow problems these days, you know?

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Re:EFI sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 07:32 · Score: 0

Storing unchangble binary drivers for each (some) architectures on PCI cards just seems like a horrible idea.

I'm glad you know how to read, you just need to learn to read the rest of that post:

As a practical matter carrying multiple instruction set versions of the same code gets expensive in FLASH memory terms. Consider an EFI compiled driver for IA-32 as the index, size: one unit. With code size expansion, an Itanium compiled driver is going to be three to four times that size. Total ROM container requirement: one unit for the legacy ROM image plus one for an EFI IA-32 driver plus three to four units for an Itanium compiled driver image; to make the card "just work" when you plug it into a variety of systems is starting to require a lot of FLASH on the card. More than the IHVs were willing to countenance in most cases for cost reasons.

EFI Byte Code was born of this challenge. Its goals are pretty straightforward: architecture neutral image, small foot print in the add-in card ROM container and of course small footprint in the motherboard which will have to carry an interpreter. We also insisted that the C source for a driver should be the same regardless of whether you build it for a native machine instruction set or EBC.

Emphasis is mine.
Re:EFI sucks by Billly+Gates · 2003-12-30 09:18 · Score: 1

Didn't MS just patent fat?

That is not good. They can sue Linus for patent and copyright infringement if he ever decides to support EFI under the Linux kernel.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:EFI sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 09:25 · Score: 0

I have an IA-64 system.. at home. :)

EFI is not a major pain in the ass. Here's how to set up, for example, a new hard disk to boot an Itanium box, in Linux.

1) Add the disk (probably hot-plug ;)
** from here, as work as root: **
2) fdisk /dev/sdb (or whatever), add new partition
3) mkfs.vfat /dev/sdb1
4) mount /dev/sdb1 /mnt
5) cp elilo /mnt (wherever you have elilo, the EFI lilo)
6) cp vmlinuz /mnt
7) umount /mnt
8) Do whatever to take the hard disk out

voila. This hard disk will let you boot Linux on another machine. I'm pretty sure I could do this entire sequence on an HP rx4640, including hot swapping the hard disk, in 15 seconds. 30 seconds would be a piece of cake.

How is EFI a pain in ths ass again? Note: you don't need any utilities, you just need a bootloader. If you want to run linux, the bootloader you need is called 'elilo', and it's a single file.

Yes, if you want to have a more sophisticated boot sequence, it would take more time. In five minutes, for example, I could write a simple EFI program to load slashdot, and boot Linux if the title of the most recent article on the main page has an even number of vowels, and boot HP-UX if it has an odd number.

I'm not joking, btw.

How quickly can you do _that_ in OpenFirmware?
Re:EFI sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 09:34 · Score: 0

Linux has supported EFI for a couple of years now...
Re:EFI sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 09:56 · Score: 0

I believe he went on to say that it was a bad idea and that's why they use the new bytecode.
Re:EFI sucks by Billly+Gates · 2003-12-30 11:39 · Score: 1

Yep but that patent is new.

They can easily put a SCO and have the resources to do it for decades.

Just a paranoid theory of course.

If Darl McBride was CEO of Microsoft, the path he would chose would be a no brainer. Then by legal, not technical reasons, Windows would be the only allowed OS.

--
http://saveie6.com/

"Before loading your operating system" by Hej · 2003-12-30 02:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

I wonder if this new BIOS replacement will be designed based on the assumption that everybody is running the most current version of Windows.

Re:"Before loading your operating system" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:56 · Score: 0

From a post that claims the bios is part of "of the innermost workings of the personal computer.", completely ignoring those who've used some other kind of firmware for nearly 10 years. yes, yes I think it's very likely.
Re:"Before loading your operating system" by swordboy · 2003-12-30 04:15 · Score: 3, Informative

Check out the link in my sig. If I am speculating correctly, then Intel will be manufacturing processors that will come with oodles of NVRAM. Oddly, Microsoft is launching a version of Windows called Elements to go along with Intel's upcoming "stackable" Pentium 5. While the market believes that the stacking design is for the addition of 64-bit expansion, I believe it is for NVRAM expansion.

Elements will reside completely in NVRAM. Not only will this allow for great enhancements to power consumption, it also eliminates the need for a BIOS.

--

Life is the leading cause of death in America.
Re:"Before loading your operating system" by AaronD12 · 2003-12-30 04:42 · Score: 1

It is looking like EFI is becoming a Windows loader, doesn't it? God forbid they use an open standard like OpenFirmware. That would be far too Mac-like.
Frankly, I don't care, as long as they don't bother to implement the cassette motor start and stop commands that are still in today's BIOSes.

What about AMD and Linux by cybermancer · 2003-12-30 02:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

When I see Microsoft and Intel working together I think of the platform lock-in of WinTel. This makes me wonder if they plan to have secret hooks offering advantages to their products. It will of course only be a matter of time for the likes of AMD and Linux to get up to speed, but sometimes a little time is all it takes to improve a market advantage through unfair practices.

--
"Anything is possible with enough programmers, time and pizza." (Substitute caffeine for time as needed.)

Re:What about AMD and Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:57 · Score: 0

If thats the case, Intel = dead in server racks I would imagine.

Intel will not go Windows only, its suicide.
Re:What about AMD and Linux by Negative+Response · 2003-12-30 03:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hmm, I am not too sure. Intel is not the problem, Microsoft is. If they give AMD an choice between complete compliance or no Windows support for their hardwares, what would AMD choose?
Re:What about AMD and Linux by Cr3d3nd0 · 2003-12-30 03:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not to step outside the Slashdot standard but remember, we do live in an open market. If Microsoft and intel try to pull this kind of stunt, even the most basic computer user is going to notice. ("Why can't I download my mp3's of the net etc.") Then along comes a company that sells a board that's compatible with the newer processors but lacks the DRM and guess what all the computer manufacturers will chose. Before you put on your tin hats remember that we still control what we purchase, and we only put up with what we allow big business to get away with.

--
This is not a sig
Re:What about AMD and Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:30 · Score: 0

I would hope that the justice department would slap MS silly if they tried that type of strong arming.
Re:What about AMD and Linux by Urkki · 2003-12-30 03:36 · Score: 1

They would sue MS based on anti-trust/anti-monopoly laws, for abusing their dominant market position.

Or they make support for motherboards with 2 ways for startup, EFI or BIOS.

Or they come up with pure open source OS hardware that is able to emulate EFI in software (obiviously with a closed-source commercial software package, but anyway), so you could have a system that boots minimal *BSD lincence OS, which then boots the EFI-"emulation".

Though considering the speed of legal action in US (or anywhere for that matter), they should start the litigation now, so they don't go bankrupt before even the first hearing...
Re:What about AMD and Linux by cybermancer · 2003-12-30 03:50 · Score: 1

One thing to realize is that eventually mainstream software (TurboTax, etc.) will only run on systems that support DRM to some degree or another. If the lobbiests get their way it will actually be illegal to create content (media, software, etc.) that exists outside of DRM.

--
"Anything is possible with enough programmers, time and pizza." (Substitute caffeine for time as needed.)
Re:What about AMD and Linux by jrexilius · 2003-12-30 03:52 · Score: 1

except for the fact that AMD is still trying to suck up to MS and wont play nice with the OS community..
Re:What about AMD and Linux by jejones · 2003-12-30 03:55 · Score: 1

Except that of course, it won't be possible for computers made with that company's motherboards to get the "Designed for MS Windows [fill in the blank]" sticker, and manufacturers won't use it.
Re:What about AMD and Linux by Red+Rocket · 2003-12-30 04:38 · Score: 1

Then along comes a company that sells a board that's compatible with the newer processors but lacks the DRM and guess what all the computer manufacturers will chose.

Then along comes Microsoft decertifying that hardware for Windows and an army of lobbyists greasing congress to make that hardware illegal and -- guess which company is driven out of business? You greatly underestimate the power of an extremely wealthy monopoly.

--
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
Re:What about AMD and Linux by the_mad_poster · 2003-12-30 04:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

That works great in market situations where people have a tiny clue as to what they're buying. The PC industry is, for the most part, clueless from stem to stern.

Joe Schmoe goes to buy a new car. He gets in a Ford Focus and the fast talking lipman tries to sell it. But Joe Schmoe doesn't like it, it's too slow.
The Lipman puts Joe in a Focus SVT. Okay, not as slow, but Joe's not very comfortable.
Lipman puts Joe in a Mustang, but that's not comfortable either, so he puts him in a Taurus. The Taurus isn't much Joe's style, but it's not too terribly sluggish and it's comfy, so he takes an SeS. Joe has made an intelligent buying decision by weighing his desires against his wallet and picked a reasonable compromise between all of the things that are important to him. Joe's car will work everywhere, and if someone tries to interfere with that, he'll notice. Joe is reasonably clued about this market.

Now, Joe needs a computer. Joe don't know electronics, so Joe goes to Circuit City and starts looking at computers. Joe knew what "200 hp" meant and even had a reasonable understanding of how the torque came into play in his new Taurus. But, Joe doesn't know how the combination of an "onboard video card" and the processor and the "memory" and the speed of the hard drive all come into play. Joe knows he wants to watch DVDs and he wants to surf for porn. The Lipman in Circuit City tells him that this new Compaq has everything he needs. Joe pretends to know what he's looking at, then buys it because it has a soundcard and a DVD-ROM. Joe doesn't know what DRM is, nobody mentioned it, and since he has a DRM'ed system, he'll almost never notice things not working because it always silently grants him access because he's "trusted". Anything that doesn't work will be written off as "broken".

The geeks, on the other hand, being a horribly underwhelming minority, are screaming bloody murder because they can't access half the sites on the net. Google sucks now and we can no longer listen to mp3 samples or watch movie trailers.

Tens of millions of Joes never know anything about the troubles of a couple hundred thousand geeks. DRM has been slipped into everything because the target market has no clue what it is, nobody tells them, and they don't think to ask.

So yes, it's an open market. But, it's an open market controlled by idiots.

--
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Re:What about AMD and Linux by bogie · 2003-12-30 05:13 · Score: 1

Can you blame them for trying to "suck up" to the vendor whose OS has 90%+ of their target market? Microsoft is Totally screwing AMD every day that goes by that they don't ship real finished 64bit versions of their OS for them. Of course I'm sure this has nothing to do with MS being pressured by Intel... As far as AMD not playing nice with the OS community I guess I can't comment since I'm not really sure what your talking about.

--
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Re:What about AMD and Linux by SpaceJunkie · 2003-12-30 05:52 · Score: 1

Since the DMCA has come about, I wouldnt be suprised if someone lobbied to make sure you couldnt return DRM items on that grounds, or to make non-DRM versions of the items illegal(kinda like REGION FREE DVD players).

You could be sure the Bush Administration, RIAA, MPAA and others will not prevent such a bill being passed - in fact - given recent event, I would almost expect them to openly push for it.

Considering the way PS2 games sell, and the PS2 market share, sony have a lot of heavy region control, as does the DVD market. VCDs, and sVCD's did not have region control - but they fell to DVD's. If you beleive we really control what we purchase, and that big business is really accountable - then you must be living in some kind of dreamworld, where 12 year old girls are not sued for their mp3 collection, and MS were actually punished effectively for their anti-competative and anti-trust violations.

--
OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
Re:What about AMD and Linux by Starve · 2003-12-30 07:58 · Score: 1

I feel that, the Wintel lockup is something I predicted to friends and they all looked at me like what the crap are you nuts? BWAHA!!! my consipracy theories come true again!!! but no seriously, a Wintel lockup would suck becuause by nature Intel charges a premium price that puts people who build machines at a disadvantage when your on a budget I would much rather pay 200 dollars for an Athlon Barton 3200+ and put the other 250 I would have had to spend on a 3.2 ghz intel at 500 dollars toward a better gpu and cooling. In the end it makes sense I fear that we may end up at a point where no longer is it Apple vs PC but moer or less like Wintel, Amd and Linux and Apple.

--
You have been sig'd
Re:What about AMD and Linux by XeroDegrees · 2003-12-30 08:28 · Score: 1

Since the DMCA has come about, I wouldnt be suprised if someone lobbied to make sure you couldnt return DRM items on that grounds, or to make non-DRM versions of the items illegal(kinda like REGION FREE DVD players).

Something like this is already in the works, google for 'technological protection measures' this makes it illegal to work round them.
Somebody broke your encryption? too bad use better encryption, somebody curcumvented your TPM? JAIL!!!!

damn both of em by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:54 · Score: 0

to hell with both M$FT & Phoenix for this, if i can not buy a motherboard without this technology in the BIOS - then i wont be buying anymore computers, and will just use my existing hardware till the wheels fall off...

Re:damn both of em by actionvance · 2003-12-30 02:58 · Score: 0

Change!? "We dont like change" said the anonymouse coward. "Damn them. it was good ENOUGH" -- cmon guy.
Re:damn both of em by RetroGeek · 2003-12-30 03:05 · Score: 1

Change!? "We dont like change"

Change I can handle. Heck, the entire computer industry is BASED on change.

However lock-in I do not like, be it MS, Intel, or Linux.

--

- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
Re:damn both of em by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:08 · Score: 0

This actually competes with Phoenix's next BIOS technology and is more or less the exact opposite idea. Phoenix's BIOS is designed to be like a mini OS in flash ram. The Microsoft-Intel technology is designed for the BIOS like exokernels are for the kernels. Basically this BIOS tries to do as little as possible and lets the operating system do all the work. This is good for both Intel and Microsoft. Microsoft because they aren't dependent on the hardware developers and Intel because they don't have to listen to Microsoft's shit.

Of course... by SharpFang · 2003-12-30 02:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Of course that woukld include obligatory, non-overridable DRM chip driver?
Big Brother Has You!

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2

Re:Of course... by merlin_jim · 2003-12-30 03:33 · Score: 1

Of course that woukld include obligatory, non-overridable DRM chip driver?
Big Brother Has You!

In Soviet Russia, you watch the DRM chip!!!

--
I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
Re:Of course... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:38 · Score: 0

Actually why would you need a chip, by writting your own drivers before the OS loads you have made it possible to plug all those loopholes for "un-trustworhty" computing.

It may not be in there in the beginning, but perhaps the new driver version for the creative sound cards (required to run newer forms of wma or wmv) will be required to have DRM. Why would creative add this to their drivers you ask? Because they've been sued by the RIAA for supporting piracy.

The part of this that bothers me is that TCPA isn't even mentioned in the article. It's obvious that this is related to "trustworthy computing".
Re:Of course... by Eadwacer · 2003-12-30 06:12 · Score: 1

Why do we need chips to do this stuff anyway? Wouldn't it be easier to just set a bunch of toggles on the front of the machine that tell it how to start up?
Re:Of course... by SharpFang · 2003-12-30 09:50 · Score: 1

Oh well, but then SB can just as well tell their Taiwan factory to produce two versions, plain and DRM-enchanced which will be available only on US market. (translating from markedroid, one with DRM just for US market and one with a dummy chip that does nothing sold everywhere except US) - personally I'm not American and I'd rather go for lower-profile non-US products than to buy the highest quality DRM shite - and losing the world market can cost any manufacturer existence, so they may start producing "Non-US versions of everything... and then those will get smuggled inside US and sold in school toilets by drug dealers.
"Come on, 100% DRM-clean! Hottest stuff! Straight from Holland! See? The null-chip! You won't find better stuff in the whole town!!"

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Re:Of course... by Alsee · 2003-12-30 16:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

but then SB can just as well tell their Taiwan factory to produce two versions

Nope.

The way Trusted Computing works is that it checks for a cryptographic signature. If you don't have that signature then that software/hardware won't work at all in Trusted mode. You can only get that signature from the group holding the Root private key. They will simply refuse to give you a signature unless you sign 42 million contracts.

If you ever do make a non-restricted version that can undetectably pass for the "secure version" then the first thing that do is throw your key on a revokation list and all of the hardware/software linked to your key that you've ever produced instantly drops dead in Trusted mode. The second thing they do is sue you for violating the 42 millions contracts you signed.

It is specificlly done in that order - if you release something that can break the DRM Trust system that is an "Emergency Response Situation". Their first priority is to is damage control and to seal the breach. They don't care if they cause 5 million computers to drop dead so long as the breach is sealed. They can sue you at leisure.

So no, it will be impossible to import a non-restricted version that will work in Trusted mode. If it doesn't enforce DRM then it will not work in Trusted mode.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Of course... by SharpFang · 2003-12-30 16:39 · Score: 1

Why, say, being a Chineese company am I forced to release hardware meant for Chineese market that conforms to US law? All that crosses US border is DRM compilant, and they have no foot to stand on what I produce outside US and never get through US borders!
And if they think they do...
Is {US} hardware market bigger than {whole world}\{US} market?
Best way to leave US in the beginning of XXI century while the world moves on to XXII.

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Re:Of course... by Alsee · 2003-12-31 07:46 · Score: 1

You haven't investigated how Trusted Computing actually works.

Why, say, being a Chineese company am I forced to release hardware meant for Chineese market that conforms to US law?

It has nothing to do with law.

The hardware WILL NOT WORK in Trusted mode unless you have a cryptographic signature from whoever holds the Root Of Trust private key.

they have no foot to stand on what I produce outside US and never get through US borders!

Right, you can manufacture whatever you like. But without a signature from the Root IT WON'T WORK.

As a hardware manufacturer you have two choices:
Option one: you can comply with the Trusted Computing Groups rules and they will give you a signature and you can make Trusted hardware.
Option two: you can make whatever hardware you like and it does not have to enforce DRM at all. But if you do that then your hardware will not be able to run the new Trusted software and it won't be able to play any of the new Trusted file types and it won't be able to connect to the new Trusted websites. Ultimately, in a decade or so, they want the global internet infrastructure to all be Trusted. You could be denied internet access at all if you do not have a compliant Trusted computer with Trusted hardware and Trusted software.

Do not mistake this as a US system. They intend it to be gobal. I think they plan to offer every country the chance to run their own Root Of Trust. Most governments would JUMP at the chance. China can use it to fight undesirable policical news. France and all of the EU can use it to fight US hate-speech sites and Nazi war memoribila auctions. Everyone can use it to fight illegal porn (from hardcore kiddy-porn to Japanese Anime to Amsterdam 16 year olds to unveiled women in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue). To fight viruses, to fight spam, to fight terrorists, to fight drugs, to enforcing anything.

With a court order any law enforcement body can demand the required signature from whoever holds the Root key. With that signature they get Root-level access to and control over any computer they want.

It works exactly like Microsoft's notorious Embrace and Extend. The new Trusted Computers Embrace ALL old software and files. Everything old works just fine on the new machines, and the new machines can do everything the old machines can do. There is absolutely no reason NOT to have a Trusted Computer. The Extend part is all the new software and files and websites don't work on old "plain" PC's. If you have a "new" PC everything works, old and new. If you have an old "plain" PC you increasingly run into problems and errors whenever they try to install new software and play new files and view new websites.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

can interact with EFI on a serial console? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

One thing I've always hated about the standard PC BIOS is that you need a keyboard, video and mouse (kvm) to configure the thing.

It'd be great if EFI initialised a serial console if detected that there was no KVM attached to the system. It'd be great for custom-made PC routers and servers on generic hardware running Linux or xBSD.

Re:can interact with EFI on a serial console? by BitwizeGHC · 2003-12-30 02:57 · Score: 1

I do not recall ever needing a mouse to configure a PC BIOS. Keyboard and video, yes; mouse, no. Perhaps you are using some new-fangled BIOS that I'm not yet aware of?

--
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
Re:can interact with EFI on a serial console? by Cheeze · 2003-12-30 03:03 · Score: 1

I have an IBM thinkpad 600c laptop that requires the laptop mouse to configure the bios. Of course, separating the mouse from the computer would be almost impossible without a dremel tool, but if the mouse is broken, i guess you're SOL.

--
Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
Re:can interact with EFI on a serial console? by mopslik · 2003-12-30 03:11 · Score: 1

have an IBM thinkpad 600c laptop that requires the laptop mouse to configure the bios.

Sounds like poor design for a specific BIOS, and not a general BIOS issue. All of my BIOSes, laptop or not, are easily navigated using the tab and enter keys.

Still, a serial console setup wouldn't hurt.
Re:can interact with EFI on a serial console? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:15 · Score: 0

Have you never used a Pheonix Server Bios? I have a Tyan Tiger MB with a server BIOS; It will run over a serial cable, modem, or Keyboard and Monitor. Very flexable. If they added Network config it would be complete.
Re:can interact with EFI on a serial console? by milgr · 2003-12-30 03:15 · Score: 1

Not all Bios require KVM. At work I use some computers that have no video, keyboard, or mouse connections. The Control Blade have network, SAN, serial, and power connections. The processor Blades have network based connections only.
The Control blades run Linux. The Processor blades run Linux or Windows.

--
Where law ends, tyranny begins -- William Pitt
Re:can interact with EFI on a serial console? by ultrapenguin · 2003-12-30 03:16 · Score: 4, Informative

Most server machines support BIOS over serial port. And not your most expensive ones, either.
I have some low-end NEC servers, and the BIOS (by default) comes configured to check for a console on serial port, and appear there, instead of the primary monitor.

And this has been around for quite a while.
Re:can interact with EFI on a serial console? by akaina · 2003-12-30 03:36 · Score: 1

Either that, or a failed attempt to force the consumer into relying on the manufacturer if the mouse goes bad.

I remember some of the old 200Mhz Compaq Presarios had part of the BIOS information stored in a hidden Xenix partition. That's a way to rely on the OEM and pay them money. Luckily when the drive failed, Maxtor's EZ-BIOS took over and I could boot, but I couldn't do anything else to the BIOS. Compaq also made proprietary monitors to handle that stupid onscreen volume control (pin16), which used to be reserved for blue channel data. You used to have to literally have a red-tinted screen by removing a pin to use the first video card pass-through accelerators.

Fast forward 5 years later, Compaq gets bought out by HP. Corrupting the hardware never gives you the advantage over your competitors.

Gateway has used proprietary hardware in the past, so when Dell began as a small company they quickly swallowed up marketshare.

If I recall correctly, it was shortly after Intel released its unique identification chip 'feature' on the P3 for secure online purchasing that AMD began to really start booming and separate itself from the rest of the pack (Cyrix etc).

I have no doubt the market will adjust itself in a similar fashion.

--
Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose.
Re:can interact with EFI on a serial console? by DJStealth · 2003-12-30 03:43 · Score: 1

Actually, even a lot of (higher-end) 'Workstation' boards support this as well.

For example, by Xeon machine @ school supports it (on an Intel 7505 board)
Re:can interact with EFI on a serial console? by SchnauzerGuy · 2003-12-30 03:43 · Score: 1

Try a PC Weasel - PC Weasel.

It is a PCI or ISA card that emulates a VGA video adaptor, with all video text output sent over a serial connection, and all text input presented to the PC as coming from a keyboard. It can even remotely reset a computer, and since it appears to the system as a normal video card, you can even edit the BIOS settings over a serial link.

It is a very cool hack, and even has open source firmware. It was mentioned on Slashdot a few years ago.
Re:can interact with EFI on a serial console? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:53 · Score: 0

Well, you really only need the keyboard. I've never needed a mouse.
Re:can interact with EFI on a serial console? by Hiro+Antagonist · 2003-12-30 04:01 · Score: 1

Yeah, but most PC 'serial port' BIOSen work for crap, especially when compared to OpenFirmware (and LOM on Suns). Most of them present you with this ASCII/ANSI-artwork interface that goes slow as fuck at 9600 bps, they often only work with some obscure terminal type that isn't to be found in most Unix terminal emulators, and they still don't give you the same level of options that OF/LOM provide -- I can't reassign hardware resources or power the machine on and/or off at will from the BIOS serial console.

On top of that, the BIOS serial console usually only hangs around until the bootloader is launched, meaning that you still can't use the serial console to install operating systems -- you need to already have an OS and bootloader that both understand serial if you want remote administration.

It's just not the same thing as a real serial console.

--

--
I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy .sig.
Re:can interact with EFI on a serial console? by BitwizeGHC · 2003-12-30 04:09 · Score: 1

Fast forward 5 years later, Compaq gets bought out by HP. Corrupting the hardware never gives you the advantage over your competitors.

Yes, but not before acquiring DEC and taking the first steps towards killing the Alpha. Compaq outlasted just about every other player in the "crappy PC with flaky proprietary hardware" niche: remember HeadStart? Leading Edge? Packard Bell?

Also, have you ever used an HP Pavilion? To a first approximation, it's a Compaq Presario. The HPaq merger is just a consolidation of the two surviving players in that niche.

--
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
Re:can interact with EFI on a serial console? by Dun+Malg · 2003-12-30 04:38 · Score: 1

have you ever used an HP Pavilion? To a first approximation, it's a Compaq Presario. The HPaq merger is just a consolidation of the two surviving players in that niche.
My mother bought one on the cheap and I eventually just bought her a real computer because I was sick of trying to keep that piece of dung functioning. As far as consumer grade equipment, their motto should be: "Hewlett-Packard...we used to make good printers".
(their commercial-grade stuff seems ok, at least. Dunno, myself; we use [gack] Dell's crap where I work)

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.

Not that they need to... by HappyOscar · 2003-12-30 02:55 · Score: 1

After all, OpenFirmware works quite nicely on other machines, notably PowerPC ones. There's lots of booting mechanisms that they could use without designing a new one that will, presumably, be somewhat biased towards Windows.

--
"Your mouse has been moved. Windows 95 must be restarted for the change to take effect."

Re:had to do it once by slim+hades · 2003-12-30 02:55 · Score: 0, Offtopic

daamnnn yooouu!.. oh well.. hope the comment was amusing enough for the masses. Seems generic, no?

Of interest to console makers? by Channard · 2003-12-30 02:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Particularly Microsoft themselves - if X-Box reaches a third iteration - I doubt this'll make X-Box 2. It may well allow them to put a stop to the old trick of soldering in a new bios chip that takes precedence over the onboard bios, thereby allowing the user to run all sorts of software, legal oses and programs and illegal pirate copies.

Re:Of interest to console makers? by RupW · 2003-12-30 03:21 · Score: 1

It may well allow them to put a stop to the old trick of soldering in a new bios chip that takes precedence over the onboard bios,

Uh, no. You put code in the chip to load the EFI code from disk and then, before executing it, patch out the anti-pirate functions and self checksums.

If you can control what gets executed first, you win. Now if they move the EFI framework inside the CPU silicon then they've pretty much won, but at the cost of flexibility of the CPU and nightmare EFI code updates.
Re:Of interest to console makers? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:31 · Score: 0

Just because they're trying to replace BIOS in the PC doesn't mean it hasn't been done in more specialized hardware. It's the console makers that are to blame for not making some ass backwards hardware.

Take the Sega Saturn for example. It's so backwards, if they combined the CD-ROM controller with another chip you couldn't have intercepted the signal and there would be no way to play burned games on it unless you flashed a burner to put a Sega Saturn header on every CD it made. Even then you still had to solder a dip switch to get it to switch regions.

But the smartest piracy protection is this, most important first:

Proprietary disc format with NO standards compliance. Make it small like the GC but don't make it the same thing as DVD, make it some crazy off format and don't include the ability to read CD-ROM or DVD. Different block sizes, different format, different everything. Who cares if each disc costs $5 to make? It's still a ton better than paying $20+ per cartridge back-in-the-day or getting your shit pirated. DO NOT use standard IDE to control it either. Last thing you need is someone to circumvent your fancy disc format by changing out the drive for a normal DVD-ROM.

Next you don't friggin include a hard drive or even the ability to connect a hard drive. Biggest. Mistake. Ever. With high capacity formats like Blu-Ray and fast drives you don't need it. Don't even consider "what you can do" with a hard drive. You're asking for trouble.

No standard interface ports. No USB. No Firewire. Just make something up, I'm sure you can hack something together that's fast enough for 5 buttons. For crying out loud the PS2 uses a PSOne chip as the I/O controller.

Finally, if you just want to go all out, use a non-standard processor. Honestly, this won't do jack for piracy. But it will generally dissuade people from experimenting with the hardware. Just look at the PS2 linux scene, it's nearly dead compared to xbox hacking. If PS2 didn't use a generic MIPS processor you probably would have no way to compile software without a dev kit, not that there's any software written in MIPS that you'd want to run on a console.
Re:Of interest to console makers? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 05:03 · Score: 0

Xbox was the test bed for non-standard bios and DRM. In theory there isn't a reason you couldn't solder on a new bios to these new mobos or a new console with EFI. Likely with a normal BIOS it won't be allowed to work with newer drivers. Newer games will require it.

Hardest part about those drop in bios replacements was getting it to play xbox games. Then again if you log onto xbox live with a modified bios they block your system from ever using xbox live.

"Compulsory upgrades for content" will be Microsofts moto if they want people to upgrade.

Intel will simply push it for newer chipsets and the "boots faster" theme. Getting 3rd party mobo manufacturers to buy in is the hardest part, but if Intel makes it easy/cheap enough...AMD boards will cost more and with 2 drivers for manufacturers to write (1 standard, 1 EFI) many add-on cards may only work for 1 platform to save costs.

DRM, here we come! by cozziewozzie · 2003-12-30 02:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not really surprising. Microsoft will need some support from the BIOS to implement their DRM 'features'. I wonder how much this will impact Linux and other free systems. After all, MS now have enough XBox experience to ensure that only their operating system can be run.

I have a bad feeling that one day we might have 'consumer-oriented' windows computers which will be cheaper and will only run Windows...

Re:DRM, here we come! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:00 · Score: 0

After all, MS now have enough XBox experience to ensure that only their operating system can be run.

so when will they have enough experience to ensure that the next patch won't brake their other patchs?
Re:DRM, here we come! by Cheeze · 2003-12-30 03:01 · Score: 1

cheaper? i bet the price will creep up over a few years (when older machines start dying).

If MicroSoft has total control over the hardware also, seems like happy days for Apple and OSX.

--
Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
Re:DRM, here we come! by IWorkForMorons · 2003-12-30 03:16 · Score: 1

After all, MS now have enough XBox experience to ensure that only their operating system can be run.

Oh yes...they have a GREAT track record for that...
Re:DRM, here we come! by cozziewozzie · 2003-12-30 03:22 · Score: 1

yes, but what you might get is that the PCs with normal BIOS get branded as 'Professional' and cost an arm and a leg. Imagine if you couldn't run Linux on an Athlon64, but had to buy an Opteron.
Re:DRM, here we come! by cozziewozzie · 2003-12-30 03:28 · Score: 1

Well, if you need to flash your bios in order to experiment with Linux, I think nobody but some hardcore geeks will use it. You could also kiss dual-booting goodbye.

Besides, MS did a pilot, and learned from it. Don't underestimate their EVIL! :)
Re:DRM, here we come! by IWorkForMorons · 2003-12-30 03:35 · Score: 1

You don't need to flash the bios, or even crack the case. You can install it using the "SaveGame" method. That way, you can play all the games you want and still boot linux when needed. Although I think this takes away your XBox Live abilities, but I personally wouldn't sign up for that anyways.

The thing is that even if MS and Intel make this wicked-kickass-hella-cool-nothing-can-hack-me BIOS replacement, someone will hack it. Nothing advertised as "Hackproof" stays that way for long...
Re:DRM, here we come! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:53 · Score: 0

Microsoft already gives discounts on Windows to PC makers on the condition that every PC they make comes with Windows preinstalled. Why couldn't they withhold discounts for PC makers that do not check for an authorized operating system? MS could do this as protection for all those poor computer users tired of having a completely new OS installed against their will and are too retarded to notice. It would be a helpful check by the hardware that would provide a helpful warning message that the computer has halted because it detected an 'untrusted' os.

oh great by pvt_medic · 2003-12-30 02:56 · Score: 1, Funny

so now we will get a blue screen of death before the computer can even load the operating system. Looks like it is time to stock up on motherboards.

--
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll

Re:oh great by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:14 · Score: 0

boooorrrinnngggg

OF by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's been on the cards for some years. Anything has to be better than a chunk of 16bit Real Mode code providing a whole bunch of functions that no one uses any more.

What I'd like to see is a more intelligent system. We still have to load the boot manager as a 512 byte chunk from sector 0 of the "first" hard drive for crying out loud! If Intel get this right, we should have intelligence right at the start. Something like GRUB or XOSL running right from ROM would be great. The ability to control hardware properly at boot..

OpenFirmware would be better but it looks like Intel won't be going down that route. We can only hope for the best..

EFI == Electronic Fuel Injection by n1ywb · 2003-12-30 02:56 · Score: 1

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

--
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com

Re:EFI == Electronic Fuel Injection by drix · 2003-12-30 03:17 · Score: 1

EFI == Electronic Fuel Injection

Uhm... 1.

--

I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Re:EFI == Electronic Fuel Injection by 42.5 · 2003-12-30 06:06 · Score: 1

How about "Electronics For Imaging"? NASDAQ: EFII. Trademarked too.

Electronics For Imaging

--
Non illegemati carborundum est!

OpenFirmware by AKAImBatman · 2003-12-30 02:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

OpenFirmware is older than the hills, well tested, loved by all, and used on just about every machine EXCEPT Intel. Is anyone getting a sense of NIH syndrome?

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade

Re:OpenFirmware by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:03 · Score: 0

Why arn't motherboard manufactuers asking Award & AMI to produce OpenFirmware for x86? It's not like this is 1983 and we all rely on IBM, Intel and Microsoft to produce PC's!
Re:OpenFirmware by nih · 2003-12-30 03:09 · Score: 1

stop picking on me!

--
I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life :(
Re:OpenFirmware by jandrese · 2003-12-30 03:32 · Score: 1

Unfortunatly, OpenFirmware doesn't support ACPI, so Intel will never go for it.

--

I read the internet for the articles.
Re:OpenFirmware by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · 2003-12-30 04:01 · Score: 1

Open firmware doesn't have any digital restrictions management garbage, hence the motivation for them to reinvent the wheel.
Re:OpenFirmware by Burnon · 2003-12-30 04:26 · Score: 1

Well, neither did EFI till it was designed that way. What are the reasons why OpenFirmware++ couldn't be evolved to support it? (Hoping someone knows...)
Re:OpenFirmware by curious.corn · 2003-12-30 05:00 · Score: 1

Because MS OS wouldn't load on those motherboards. The stranglehold MS has on the market prevents fair competition. I don't know the '80s history of OF or that of BIOS. I have the feeling IBM just hacked enough code to get the "640K is enough forever..." machines they initially designed or perhaps OF wasn't still viable, I don't know. Perhaps IBM wanted to put it's own stranglehold on it's new platform and got screwed when (was it Compaq?) it got reverse engineered. Now it's MS's turn to bully the global market into kneeling down to it's authority... let's hope history repeats itself! Wouldn't it be the perfect worldwide joke if IBM itself, the repentant felon, crushed the Wintel strategy by declaring OF the true successor of BIOS?

--
Mi domando chi Ã il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Re:OpenFirmware by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 05:47 · Score: 0

You are actually 100% correct.

Windows 9x won't load on OpenFirmware. And neither will DOS, OS/2, NetWare, and numerous other 'legacy' OSes still in use.

Enough people use these OSes that support MUST be provided for. EFI provides for backwards PC-compatibility. Open Firmware does not.

Windows NT/XP could easily be modified for any boot loader, just like Linux. It booted off OF in the past on PowerPC systems.
Re:OpenFirmware by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 06:07 · Score: 0

Wouldn't it be the perfect worldwide joke if IBM itself, the repentant felon, crushed the Wintel strategy by declaring OF the true successor of BIOS?
But who would follow?
Most people who play russian roulette don't have a multi-billion tech company to screw up, and their name dragged through mud for the rest of eternity.
Re:OpenFirmware by pipingguy · 2003-12-30 07:56 · Score: 1

If it's NIH it'll be NIMBY!

Why would I want to start my hardware... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 02:57 · Score: 1, Insightful

...before the OS loads? I can fix my file systems from a boot floppy/CD. With modern operating systems, we should need less BIOS, not more.

Re:Why would I want to start my hardware... by RevRa · 2003-12-30 03:45 · Score: 1

Ever used a Sun system? There are a zillion reasons to start your hardware first.

OBP/OpenFirmware is an extremely powerful tool for diagnostics/troubleshooting, special configurations, hardware fault handling, security, etc.

Just as one example, the system can be told to stop at the OpenFirmware prompt and you can instruct it where to boot from. (cdrom, net, disk[1-?], etc, etc) It pretty much eliminates the need for boot loaders.

And yes, it works with Linux. (Ask anyone who's ever ran Linux on SPARC.)

--
- Kate
"DNA is life. The rest is just translation."

back in my day... by PoPRawkZ · 2003-12-30 02:57 · Score: 2, Funny

I remember when we had to flash our BIOS off a 5 1/4 inch magnetic storage media and if there was a brown out like there so often were back before we had nuclear fission, you'd have to replace your EPROM! You kids have it so good these days.

--
peace,
-Grokent

Re:back in my day... by n1ywb · 2003-12-30 03:01 · Score: 1

you'd have to replace your EPROM

Only if you were too un-leet to burn your own EPROMS :)

--
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
Re:back in my day... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:08 · Score: 0

Linux is just the punch Card of the Day.
They will feel the same when the get old.
Re:back in my day... by Dr+Caleb · 2003-12-30 03:11 · Score: 1

In the old days, we had to hand code our own S10 records to burn our EPROMS. If you don't know what an S10 record is, you're too young :)

--
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Re:back in my day... by jsveiga · 2003-12-30 03:25 · Score: 1

...personal computers didn't have 5 1/4 magnetic storage, couldn't have their BIOS updated (unless you replaced the chip), and booted completely from their ROM - operating system AND (basic/BASIC) shell.

If you wanted to load an application, you'd use a cassete tape.

Flash BIOS?! You kid had it so good in your days...

Why? by mekkab · 2003-12-30 02:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

The excuse "WEll, current BIOS systems is just patch written upon patch written upon patch. ITs a mess."

But it works. Is an EFI system going to be markedly faster? When you tell me you are loading device drivers at the BIOS level, that tells me "No"- you are creeping the OS lower.

So whats the deal?
from Intel's EFI web site: Together, these provide a standard environment for booting an operating system and running pre-boot applications.

AHhhh! Running PRE-BOOT operations! This sounds like a lame way to shoe-horn in DRM or something similar onto my machine before it loads up.

Maybe I'm acting paranoid, but the slowest thing on my windows computer is WINDOWS, not the bios- that runs pretty fast.

--
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.

Re:Why? by noyren · 2003-12-30 03:31 · Score: 1

Yeah, that's what I noticed aswell.

What worries me is something like the cellphone companies uses. This cell phone is real cheap, but you have to be on one specific isp.

I'd really hate to see microsoft only computers beeing sold...
Re:Why? by ivan256 · 2003-12-30 04:02 · Score: 1

AHhhh! Running PRE-BOOT operations! This sounds like a lame way to shoe-horn in DRM or something similar onto my machine before it loads up.

Actually, pre-boot operations are a nescisity, and exist on your current system. They're things like ECC initialization, memory tests, boot image acquisition, and hardware management functions (boot passwords, frequency selection, onboard device selection and removal). It's stuff you need to do to get the machine ready to run the first user instruction.
Re:Why? by jrexilius · 2003-12-30 04:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think the more indirect point/question is that perhaps the current pre-boot operations cant effectively support their DRM desires and they need an extended pre-boot model to lock out unwanted software.

An earlier post had a link to a threaded discussion with linux core people, Linus, and a guy named Mark from Intel. He gave a background summary of why they are going down this path but he was obviously speaking to his audience and left out mention of any DRM considerations. I am sure the topic was examined as they were developing this model so I am curious/concerned that there may be more to that story.
Re:Why? by Dun+Malg · 2003-12-30 04:49 · Score: 1

The excuse "WEll, current BIOS systems is just patch written upon patch written upon patch. ITs a mess." But it works. Is an EFI system going to be markedly faster?
Heh. What I always tell people who say the "BIOS is all patch", is that BIOS is more like an axe that's been in the family for generations. Sure, we've had to replace the handle a few times, and sometimes we replace the head, but it's still the same axe! I think you're spot-on about EFI. Is there really anything BIOS needs to do that it's not doing well enough already, or can't be made to do without a total tearout-and-replace?

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:Why? by ivan256 · 2003-12-30 05:19 · Score: 1

I disagree. The current closed model makes DRM more practical. EFI makes it easier to run user generated pre-boot code without building hardware, and thus makes DRM less practical.

Intel only cares about DRM to the extent that it prevents the loss of customers. defining a platform that requires DRM would loose them more customers than adding mandatory DRM would gain them. They will for the forseeable future continue to design for general purpose computing with DRM as an option.

Also, you have to remember that Linus lives in a different world than the rest of the industry. He has the luxury of being idealistic. While the EFI implementation from intel is still slightly buggy, as a whole it's not too bad. It's not designed from an ideal engineering perspective (which Linus can be free to have) but from the perspective of Intel's desire to make money from their platform. From that perspective they made many of the right decisions.

The EFI spec is free for the asking (I have a copy right here)... There's no need to speculate as to what's possible, just get the PDF and see for yourself.
Re:Why? by Julian352 · 2003-12-30 05:41 · Score: 1

The only problem I have with your logic is the fact that Intel would be scared to lose customers due to the DRM. The whole ID inside CPU chip fiasco was the beginning of a DRM in CPUs and they were not at all scared to go down that path. Only after a HUGE stink was raised with the ability to ask for the ID over the net connection was the feature "disabled". (It still could be enabled easily enough by software IIRC)
The DRM technology would not lose them customers if they do it together with MS, RIAA, MPAA, etc. All that is required is to have the media available cheaper/exclusively on MS software that requires DRM hardware and people will buy them. Most people wouldn't know the difference between the two computers (with DRM and without) except that one with DRM can play the "exclusive" content. If they can sign up Dell, HP/Compaq, etc. to sell these new features in HUGE letters, people will buy it.
And computer manufacturer would love to obsolete all the "old" machines because this new feature can only be used on new computers. That's money in the bank for them.
Re:Why? by ivan256 · 2003-12-30 06:28 · Score: 1

The ID in the chip is a great example because it didn't stop you from doing whatever you want with the chip. Requesting the ID over a net connection is absurd, and was never possible without supporting software (that you weren't required to run). Last I checked there wern't any P3 or P4 processors with an embedded network interface, and even the Centrino crap requires drivers to be loaded.

I don't know why you think the RIAA or the MPAA have anything to do with Intel's sales. Intel sells chips to many more people than desktop customers, and they'd loose lots of server clients with the added DRM overhead. The bottom line is that you're going to be able to run whatever instructions you'd like on your Intel chip for a long time now. If some software you want requires you to enable DRM features to run it, you have a problem with your software vendor, not Intel.

This is a rediculous conversation anyway. Like I said. The EFI spec is available to all. Take a look and stop speculating.
Re:Why? by claes · 2003-12-30 09:06 · Score: 1

Centrino crap

I don't know much about Centrino, but as far as I can tell, the nicest looking laptop (excluding Mac laptops) uses it - HP/Compaq Presario X1000. However, Linux does not run well on it. Is that why you call it crap?
Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 09:12 · Score: 0

Funny - that's how I'd describe it if I'd read "The Fifth Elephant" recently.
Re:Why? by Ben+Hutchings · 2003-12-30 10:01 · Score: 1

How about fixing the boot process? Historically, the BIOS would only boot from the first floppy drive (drive 0x00) or the first hard drive (drive 0x80). There was no need for the BIOS to pass the device number to the boot loader, since a bootable floppy would only ever be booted as drive 0x00 and a bootable hard drive would only ever be booted as drive 0x80. Of course people do want to boot off other devices, and BIOSes now support that, but they have to change the drive number mapping to do so. This makes drives inaccessible and can make it hard for an OS installer to work out what the drive number mapping will be when the OS boots off hard drive.
Re:Why? by ivan256 · 2003-12-30 10:07 · Score: 1

I call it crap because it seems to me that it was designed by the marketing department. I'm sure it all works fine, so it's not crap from that perspective, but since they don't really care to tell anybody how to actually use all of it (like they do with their other processors) and it's so tightly integrated that platform flexability is practically out of the question, I called it "crap".

The low power stuff they have in there seems pretty nice though.
Re:Why? by Dun+Malg · 2003-12-31 08:54 · Score: 1

Funny - that's how I'd describe it if I'd read "The Fifth Elephant" recently.
Actually, I think TP must have used it in an earlier Discworld book as well, 'cause I think I've been using his axe analogy for more than 3 years.

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.

Just another plus by kalidasa · 2003-12-30 02:58 · Score: 0, Offtopic

to using PPC hardware, that is.

Re:Just another plus by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 05:32 · Score: 0

So let me get this straight: the above comment, which makes the point that PPC hardware has OpenFirmware, not a BIOS or EFI, and so is not vulnerable to MS's mucking about with the BIOS, is OFFTOPIC?

And of course by 3lb4rt0 · 2003-12-30 02:59 · Score: 0, Offtopic

no one will ever need more than 640kb of memory.

Does this mean it'll crash before loading Windows? by VEGx · 2003-12-30 02:59 · Score: 1, Funny

Since M$ is on it...

Microsoft Logic by Alien54 · 2003-12-30 03:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

Because then Microsoft could not get it's Digital Rights management technology implemented into the hardware, and thereby lock out Open Source systems to one degree or another.

There's been lots of worry about this sort of thing, given MS busines practices in the past.

Freedom is a hard concept for some folks to deal with

I hope that this turns into a financial disaster for them.

--
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"

Re:Microsoft Logic by Abjifyicious · 2003-12-30 04:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well it's not like the Linux community is completely helpless in the legal department.
If MS did try and bully hardware manufacturers into altering hardware to lock out Open Source systems, I would think that Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake, etc. would all be after them with lawsuits, and if MS tried to get a law passed requiring DRM in the hardware or whatever, I'm guessing there would be at least several thousand letters sent to politicians from Angry Linux Users protesting such a law. And then there are all those companies that use Open Source Software who'd be pissed off if they were forced to switch to MS software just 'cause MS said so. Not to mention the fact that the government itself is starting to switch to Linux.
Seriously folks, we're not just gonna wake up one day and find that all our favorite OS's have been outlawed.
Re:Microsoft Logic by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 06:39 · Score: 0

Don't forget IBM.
Re:Microsoft Logic by diakka · 2003-12-30 07:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Seriously folks, we're not just gonna wake up one day and find that all our favorite OS's have been outlawed.

If everyone had your attitude, then I feel confident that day would come to pass.

It's the paranoid and vigilant who will work to protect freedom. The fact that this discussion is taking place should be a warning to MS that we will not take any such lock out attempt lying down. Should it be the case that EFI is not used for lock out purposes, you'll surely say, "See, you were just paranoid". But however it turns out, paranoia is indisputably the safer option.

BTW, anyone have Linux booting on the all-in-one Gateway 610 Media Center desktop that was mentioned in the article? Perhaps that could give us further insight.

--
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
Re:Microsoft Logic by teece · 2003-12-30 07:07 · Score: 1

Seriously folks, we're not just gonna wake up one day and find that all our favorite OS's have been outlawed.
Keep up the ostrich attitude and we will. Microsoft desires, and has purused before, exactly the scanrio that you outline. They thought they had what they wanted with the illegal, restrictive contracts with OEMs. But Linux/BSD et al. have still thrived. Microsoft has a lot of money -- with that money they can, and have, bought a lot of political friends.
They will try again.
That being said, I don't know enough about this initiative to have any idea if it is it.

--
-- Hello_World.c: 17 Errors, 31 Warnings
Re:Microsoft Logic by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 07:41 · Score: 0

Synch that foil hat down sonny! The rays are gonna getcha!
Re:Microsoft Logic by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 08:34 · Score: 0

Nobody forgets IBM. They just fail to mention the obvious.
Re:Microsoft Logic by Billly+Gates · 2003-12-30 09:01 · Score: 1

From what I have seen EFI is a compromise like IBM's TCPA "trusted" computing initiative.

Like TCPA, you can turn drm off by default. However you lose the ability to encrypt word documents in Windows and listen to WMA's from Microsoft's rumored new online music store modeled after Itunes. My guess is after awhile Windows will not even boot with it off.

Linux/FreeBSD can still run as long as its off. Since the actual boot signature is a tradesecret, you can go to jail under the DMCA for writing support for DRM in Lilo or Grub. Amazing isn't it?? Ugh.

It will just make life harder for average joes who buy a redhat cd, stick it in and wonder why they get a "permission denied" error when he boots them. OF course techies will know to go into cmos and disable it. It will be harder to teach newbies to learn anything but windows since they know you should not mess with cmos unless you know what your doing.

The good news is anyone remember OS/2? Today, my Asus AV7X8 Athlon motherboard still supports OS/2 OS option in my cmos! Linux is more popular then that and I am sure it will be around for years. Otherwise I would switch to a mac in a heartbeat.

We need to appeal the DMCA, because this encryption is the only way to make a pc secure and Linux could use it. It has other uses besides crippling pc's. WIth it on, its impossible for the CPU to run any instruction without a key.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Microsoft Logic by Billly+Gates · 2003-12-30 09:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Seriously folks, we're not just gonna wake up one day and find that all our favorite OS's have been outlawed."

You know, back in 99 I heard a similiar argument by the vast majority of slashdotters in regards to a new propossed law called the DMCA.

I myself called RMS and the EFF, lunitics and mentioned it here in regards to it. I got modded +4 informitive. My responses were on the line of ya, like they are going to sue innocent software developers who want to watch DVD's or those who bad mouth a company.

Come on get real. The dmca will never be used to cancel free speech.....

Well, I was shocked to find out not only was RMS and the EFF right but it was far far more worse then imagined.

Why can't I watch my own dvd's?

You know what? What would MS and the MPAA do if I wrote a patch for Lilo or grub that uses the ultra secret boot signature? I would get thrown in the federal "slam me in the ass" prison!

I just posted another post mentioning how Linux will be still supported for some time like OS/2 is from many bios's. But still I am extremely cautous.

ALso look at soyo with the ACPI installed by default on some of their motherboards due to a bug. Linux and FreeBSD at the time could not use ACPI properly with it and it caused a major headache. The same could happen if pallidium is on by default so manufactors could avoid headaches with Linux support. I doubt this but its certainly possible.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Microsoft Logic by bnenning · 2003-12-30 09:18 · Score: 1

But however it turns out, paranoia is indisputably the safer option.

Well said. This also applies to stuff like the Patriot Act and the recent OnStar issues.

--
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Re:Microsoft Logic by Rysc · 2003-12-30 13:29 · Score: 1

Many accolades, and I concur. Too bad I ran out of mod points this morning.

--
I want my Cowboyneal
Re:Microsoft Logic by Abjifyicious · 2003-12-30 16:21 · Score: 1

You do have an excellent point, and I realize now that my original post sounded a bit too cocky. In my original post, I basically said that people shouldn't be worried, and that was a stupid thing to say.
However, this case is unlike the DMCA in one important way. In the case of the DMCA, it basically helps most companies and hurts most consumers. In the case of Linux-locked hardware though, it doesn't just hurt consumers, it also hurts every company that sells Linux, and every company/organization/government that uses Linux.
Re:Microsoft Logic by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-31 10:23 · Score: 0

No, "Freedom for Others" is the hard concept that some entities (people, corps) have a hard time getting.

Because any threat of their ability to impose their will on others is deemed, "threatens our ability to 'innovate'", "threatens our business model", "they implicitly agreed to the EULA!", etc., as a loss of THEIR liberty, not everyone else's.

EFI drivers loaded at boot by onion_breath · 2003-12-30 03:00 · Score: 1

This makes me think about having each device contain its own driver in firmware. Updating drivers would be a matter of getting the driver from online or disc and flashing some chip onboard that device. Such a system would lock you into one OS since the device would bring it's own driver with it, which could be another reason for microsoft's interest... Just a brain fart.

--
this is my sig, be amazed.

Re:EFI drivers loaded at boot by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:17 · Score: 0

What a great idea! You could call it AutoConfig, and make it so that the OS could use patches as updates to the built-in drivers.

Of course, you coudn't call the resulting computer a PC anymore. What do you think of "Amiga" as a name for a computer?
Re:EFI drivers loaded at boot by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:22 · Score: 1, Informative

No, it wouldn't lock you into a particular OS.

This is _exactly_ what Linux needs. There would be an open standard for device drivers - any OS which supported the standard could use the firmware drivers instead of having to load its own. And this is exactly what the OS community needs. One of the major barriers to adoption of Linux is the fact that it doesn't have drivers for all of the hardware out there. If the drivers were loaded into the firmware, Linux could run on any PC, regardless of the hardware installed.

Sure, they could use DRM and kernel signing to prevent Linux from loading. But this capability has already existed for a long time now. IIRC, some of Compaq's old servers (about 8 years ago) came with an OS checksum in the BIOS - if it wasn't Compaq's version of NT, the BIOS wouldn't load it. Compaq has stopped this practice, as many of their customers got sick of being unable to migrate their servers to Win2k.

But I doubt it's as bad as it seems. Yes, they're going to _try_ to get DRM to take off. But nobody's going to buy it. To understand why, consider why the PC became so popular in the first place:

Open Standards.

Back in the 80's, Apple was a serious contender for the desktop. IBM released the PC specification for their BIOS; Apple did not. We all know how that went over. So either there will be an open standard for the new BIOS, or only the fringe players are going to adopt it.

Oh, and BTW, this is somewhat of a moot point. Almost all of the major manufacturers - Dell, HP, Compaq, Toshiba, etc... write their own BIOS. So even if this does become standardized with DRM, it still might not matter if none of the major manufacturers use it.

Even if it fails as a standard, the major PC makers may still implement DRM in the BIOS... silently. I've just bought a Toshiba laptop which can't take screenshots - I didn't know about it until after I bought it. DRM strikes again!
Re:EFI drivers loaded at boot by Trashman · 2003-12-30 03:37 · Score: 1

What you descibed already exists it's called I2O.

It didn't seem to take off because Microsoft wanted to shut out Open Source developers. See this

--
Do not read this .sig
Re:EFI drivers loaded at boot by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:03 · Score: 0
No. It would be a total nightmare.
Vendor-supplied drivers without source are going to be BUGGY.
They are going to be doubly buggy if they are run with a compiler that has a buggy back-end.
And that back-end is going to be buggy if it's for some random bytecode that isn't widely used except for some silly EFI thing and is tested exclusively with just a few versions of Windows and _maybe_ occasionally on Linux.
Face it: firmware bytecode is a total braindamage. The only thing that works is _source_code_ that can be fixed, and lacking that, we're better off with a well-defined ISA that people are used to and that has stable simple compilers.
In other words: x86 object code is a better choice than some random new bytecode. It's a "bytecode" too, after all. And it's one that is stable and runs fast on most hardware. But as long as it's some kind of binary (and byte code is binary, don't make any mistake about it), it's going to always be broken.
EFI is doing all the wrong things. Trying to fix BIOSes by being "more generic". It's going to be a total nightmare if you go down that path.
What will work is:
- standard hardware interfaces. Instead of working on bytecode interpreters, make the f*cking hardware definition instead, and make it SANE and PUBLIC! So that we can write drivers that work, and that come with source so that we can fix them when somebody has buggy hardware. DO NOT MAKE ANOTHER FRIGGING BYTECODE INTERPRETER! Didn't Intel learn anything from past mistakes? ACPI was supposed to be "simple". Codswallop. PCI works, because it had standard, and documented, hardware interfaces. The interfaces aren't well specified enough to write a PCI disk driver, of course, but they _are_ good enough to do discovery and a lot of things. Intel _could_ make a "PCI disk controller interface definition", and it will work. The way USB does actually work, and UHCI was actually a fair standard, even if it left _way_ too much to software.
- Source code. LinuxBIOS works today, and is a lot more flexible than EFI will _ever_ be.
- Compatibility. Make hardware that works with old drivers and old BIOSes. This works. The fact that Intel forgot about that with ia-64 is not an excuse to make _more_ mistakes.
Don't screw this up. EFI is not going in the right direction.
Re:EFI drivers loaded at boot by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:53 · Score: 0

Tell me, precisely what will having the driver source code do for hardware in which the errors lie etched in the silicon?

Nothing!

If a company is so careless as to release untested drivers, do you really believe their chip design will be any better?

It's cheap hardware for a reason.

Driver source code is a moot point. If you have to patch the firmware, it's probably because you're buying the wrong hardware in the first place.

Not to rant, but hardware _should_ work right out of the box. If I have to patch the firmware because of bugs, you can bet that's the last time I buy from that vendor.

And yeah, a firmware bytecode interpreter is pretty stupid. Why on earth would anyone want to slow down access to physical devices? They're already slow enough!

Oh, right. Something's got to drive the demand for faster processors...
Re:EFI drivers loaded at boot by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 08:29 · Score: 0

I can't speak for Linus but:
If a company is so careless as to release untested drivers, do you really believe their chip design will be any better?
Experience, and the fact they're two different things. Look at videocards, there are few major problems with the hardware for the average ATI or nVidea card, but both are incapable of producing drivers that do not suck donkey.
I can't speak for Intel but:
And yeah, a firmware bytecode interpreter is pretty stupid. Why on earth would anyone want to slow down access to physical devices? They're already slow enough!
I'm guessing the intent is so that radically different CPU architectures can still use the same firmware architecture. Intel, for example, has their 32 and 64 bit offerings, which are largely incompatable. Intel could base the entire thing around 32 bit ix86 code, but I think they'd rather not build legacy into their system when they're still designing it.

The way things are going... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:01 · Score: 0

...my BIOS is going to need its own BIOS to boot the BIOS.

Figures. by alecto · 2003-12-30 03:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

No mention at all in the article of what has to be one of the biggest reasons for the push to change the boot process: Digital Restrictions Management/Trusted Computing/Palladium/Next Generation Secure Computing Base. (Notice how the name gets changed every time it becomes obvious what it really is.)

Re:Figures. by morelife · 2003-12-30 04:17 · Score: 1

Precisely - it's DRM, and ultimate control of consumers and the market. Now is a great time to start switching away from the Intel PC platform to PPC based products and what have you. And I certainly hope AMD sees the benefit of staying open and not participating in this BS. Same with IBM as they now manufacture the CPUs for G5 and have lots to say (I imagine) about the platform architecture.

This whole initiative will fail if enough intelligent consumers and corporate types don't buy into it. However I fear Apple will join the Intel/MS mindset - remember they've got their own little DRM implementation going ...

And so it ends... by Cyclops · 2003-12-30 03:01 · Score: 1

... the BIOS theoretical loophole to Treacherous Computing.

One better start stockpiling computers that still work...

Re:And so it ends... by MoneyT · 2003-12-30 03:09 · Score: 1

Nah, just start buying computers that use open firmware

--
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984

Palladium and trusted computing by cybermancer · 2003-12-30 03:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

I noticed that the first PC to use EFI was a Gateway "Media Center" desktop. For those who do not know, Media Center is Microsoft's first attempt at highly integration of DRM (Digital Rights Management) into the core functionality of the OS. Knowing the agenda for Palladiam and so called "Trusted Computing" (Who do you trust today?) I would really think twice before letting the likes of Microsoft and Intel (remember the P4 CPU ID?) rewrite my PC at the BIOS level.

The "competition" between Pheonix BIOS and EFI could be the beginning of the split between closed platform "Trusted" PC's and open platform PC's. I would not be surprised if EFI has provisions (at some future point) to require the OS is signed. That rules out Linux, BSD, etc.

Naturally they are doing all this for our best interests.

--
"Anything is possible with enough programmers, time and pizza." (Substitute caffeine for time as needed.)

Re:Palladium and trusted computing by 3lb4rt0 · 2003-12-30 03:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

Quoting the Phoenix article linked to in the body of the main article

"Future versions will take aim at servers, blades, desktops and embedded systems such as consumer electronics, with plans to introduce digital rights management (DRM) and more closely integrate the BIOS with Windows."

Gonna end up between a rock and a hard place as far as DRM is concerned.

Those media co.s have to try and squeeze every penny.
Re:Palladium and trusted computing by cxvx · 2003-12-30 03:13 · Score: 1

I would really think twice before letting the likes of Microsoft and Intel (remember the P4 CPU ID?) rewrite my PC at the BIOS level.

You misspelled P3 as P4 :)
This page however seems to suggest the cpuid is still present in early incarnations of the P4

--
If only I could come up with a good sig ...
Re:Palladium and trusted computing by tr0p · 2003-12-30 03:39 · Score: 1

M$ and intel are opening up a HUGE market niche right now. I'm sure Apple isn't gonna sit still on this one, and the barriers to entry into the hardware market just got a lot lower. Wintel is biting off more than they can chew with this one. It seems like they think that they can target the old Hewlett Packard Home PC market and sell Zillions! of pc's to oblivious users (with Free! AOL software valued at $60!!).
Sorry, but unless I need this DRM'ed crap to get on the internet, I'd get a Mac first anyday.

--
My only regret... is that I have... bonitis..
Re:Palladium and trusted computing by cybermancer · 2003-12-30 03:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

. . .but unless I need this DRM'ed crap to get on the internet. . .

It is only a matter of time before there are two Internet's co-existing. One that is only accessible to those with DRM, and one that is only accessible to everyone. Eventually with time (unless the tides are turned) all the commercial content will migrate to the DRM network, and DRM enabled PC's will no longer be able to access the non DRM one because it is too "Dangerous".

If lobbiests get their way then it will soon be illegal to provide content (web page, music, software, etc.) not controlled by DRM. Anyone who wants true freedom will need two PC's in their home, one with DRM, one without. And they will be even more incompatible then PC and MAC or Windows and Linux.

--
"Anything is possible with enough programmers, time and pizza." (Substitute caffeine for time as needed.)
Re:Palladium and trusted computing by cybermancer · 2003-12-30 04:17 · Score: 1

You are correct sir. Seems like I also saw something that AMD was in on the CPUID thing now as well.

Why is it that they promote these things as providing more security, be we only see them as taking away our privacy and security?

--
"Anything is possible with enough programmers, time and pizza." (Substitute caffeine for time as needed.)
Re:Palladium and trusted computing by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:17 · Score: 0

This whole thing is beginning to smell like the "Escape from New York" movie, with one side wearing rose colored glasses and the other equipped with eye patches.

Of course, when something BAAAD happens, the rosie's will recruit the some from the dark side to fix it...

M
Re:Palladium and trusted computing by Tim+C · 2003-12-30 04:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

remember the P4 CPU ID?

Yes, I remember the P3's CPU ID. I remember turning it off in the BIOS on first boot of my (then) brand new P3 700, and I remember it staying off and having absolutely no effect on me at all.

I also remember not reading about any invasions of privacy involving the CPU ID. To be honest, I'm surprised that you mentioned it, given that nothing much really came of it. Sure, perhaps they had designs on something nefarious or underhand - but it came to nothing. That may well be a good indication of what will happen if they try anything similar this time round...

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:Palladium and trusted computing by poot_rootbeer · 2003-12-30 04:37 · Score: 3, Informative

For those who do not know, Media Center is Microsoft's first attempt at highly integration of DRM (Digital Rights Management) into the core functionality of the OS.

???

The DRM hooks may be present in XP Media Center Edition, but that doesn't mean you have to use them. I've been running the OS for weeks, and haven't even had to sign up for a Passport.

My HP Media Center PC even came with software to convert video files captured by MS'S PVR codec into free-and-clear MPEG's.
Re:Palladium and trusted computing by Red+Rocket · 2003-12-30 04:58 · Score: 1

My HP Media Center PC even came with software to convert video files captured by MS'S PVR codec into free-and-clear MPEG's.

But...suppose the EFI ROM code installed option ROMs that locked those MPEG files onto that particular PC by preventing the NIC from transmitting it and the CD/DVD+-RW from burning it -- or perhaps even preventing the video card from displaying it and the sound card from playing the audio. Now do you see the issue? You could wind up with hardware that you are not free to use as you wish.

--
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
Re:Palladium and trusted computing by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 05:42 · Score: 1, Interesting

EFI will never REQUIRE a signed OS to operate.

CONTENT will REQUIRE signed OS.

New versions of Quicktime, Real Media, WMA... will need a signed OS to allow it to be played. Just like any XBOX game looks for a signed OS. You want to play that new trailer for The Hobbit, well that's copyrighted content and quicktime is forced to make it a signed media file (if they want to continue to host trailers for the MPAA).

Don't get me wrong this isn't a good thing, but there is a difference between not being allowed to run Linux and not allowed to run DRM content.

Your copy of Linux will need to be a SIGNED "Trustworthy" client to run applications that require it. You can bet this won't be an open source part of your kernel.

This is the catch that will keep Intel and Microsoft from looking like monopoly's outright. Makes Linux users look like paranoids. Which we are for good reason, but lets see it for what it is.

On longhorn you will get a popup window that says this software is not "trustworthy" do you want to run it? If it's a virus that will destroy the system MS will say you accepted un-trustworthy software so it's not our fault there was a security hole. Good scapegoat eh? Computing will not be any safer because people will have tons of unsigned software anyway. Face it end-users don't read warnings about spyware now, they won't in the future.

It all depends on how well Longhorn is accepted.

BTW, the new Phoenix "core" bios has a version of TCPA/DRM as well. Evidently their team is scared of a "non-trustworthy" solution. Longhorn would in essence make any non-efi bios "unsigned", "untrustworthy" the same as linux, bsd... Just because it's not Intel making the bios doesn't make it your friend.
Re:Palladium and trusted computing by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 05:44 · Score: 0

I remember a hack for IE that could get this turned back on with Actieve X controls. BIOS sure didn't stop that.
Re:Palladium and trusted computing by Tim+C · 2003-12-30 05:46 · Score: 1

Iirc, that required a forced reboot of the machine, so it wasn't entirely stealthy. I admit, though, that the majority of Win9x users would probably not notice anything unusual in a sudden reboot ;-)

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:Palladium and trusted computing by gerardrj · 2003-12-30 06:11 · Score: 1

Why is it that they promote these things as providing more security, be we only see them as taking away our privacy and security?
Because you assume that they mean YOUR security, not their security.
It makes their bottom line more secure, their lack of competition more secure, etc.

--
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Re:Palladium and trusted computing by Billly+Gates · 2003-12-30 09:23 · Score: 1

Corporate AMerica loves DRM. They can timebomb their docs and delete them if they are ever sued or investigated. ENron would be off scott free if they had pallidium.

To a user its a nightmare.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Palladium and trusted computing by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 11:55 · Score: 0

When your trying to hook a fish, you don't yank the line at the first nibble.

Microsoft is waiting for market share before turning on all the DRM, control crap, etc.

But don't worry. You'll be the first to know.
Re:Palladium and trusted computing by Alsee · 2003-12-30 17:43 · Score: 1

that nothing much really came of it.

Of course nothing ever came of it, because it was killed off.

Only a small percentage of machines have it, and those that do generally turn it off. Therefore no one tries to use it. If it had survived and been incorporated into all new PC's then turning it off would be much like trying to surf the web with cookies and Javascript turned off. Possible to do, but it becomes a massive pain in the neck.

That may well be a good indication of what will happen if they try anything similar this time round...

I certainly hope you're right, but they are putting up a huge smoke screen advertizing unrelated benefits and slipping in this poison pill. They are also getting very sneaky and scrubbing out any direct refference to Trusted Computing from all related projects.

This is at least the third time I've caught a hidden Trusted Computing connection in a slashdot story - even the techies and geeks here are completely missing the connections.

In this case they didn't scrub hard enough and I can directly prove the connection. First of all Google's cache has a link to an Intel paper titled TCPA Technical Overview for EFI. The link is dead - that paper must have "accidentally" fallen down the Memory Hole. I did find another Intel paper on EFI, on page 20 it states that EFI's Security Support Protocol 'maps well' to the the Trusted Computing Groups's Trusted Platform Module. It is specificly designed to run on top of Trusted hardware. If you look at page 21 it even has support for a Remote Take Ownership ability.

Another story was on the Content Reference Forum. Their technical specs go into great detail on "Rights Expression Language" and "Contracts". They clearly expect these contracts to be enforced, they state that thier system is designed to run on top of some sort of enforcement system, their system is an exact match for Trusted Computing, they use all of the key Trusted Computing terminology, the group is a successor to the failed Oasis group which was working on Trusted Computing, any direct verifiable link to Trusted Computing is conspicuously missing.

The really scary one it Cisco's Network Admission Control system. Every single news site that covers it hails it as Cisco declaring war of viruses and worms, or Cisco blocking viruses at the router. However these routers do nothing to block viruses. What they do is deny an internet connection to any computer that is not compliant with the security policy. The computer must be running a Cisco Trust Agent, that Trust Agent then verifies that the computer is running (or not running) any specific software, souch as an approved firewall, virus scanner, OS, and OS patch level. Again, the system is an exact match for Trusted Computing, they use all of the key Trusted Computing terminology, Cisco is a founding member of the Trusted Computing Group, yet after spending several hours researching the system I still can't find a single concrete link proving it is based on Trusted Computing.

I'm not sure whether to be elated that Trusted Computing is getting a bad reputation such that they need to make such efforts to scrub out any reference to it, or whether to despair that they have succeeded so well that even Slashdot is completely oblivious to the connections.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Re:Why? (next time preview) by mekkab · 2003-12-30 03:02 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, that should be "More" device drivers at the BIOS level. Of COURSE you are loading device drivers at the BIOS level- (boot devices, keyboard, video, ram) Its the frickin' BIOS!

--
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.

Aye by ackthpt · 2003-12-30 03:04 · Score: 1

Aye, one more thing for worms and virii to manipulate. Guess I better get my next motherboard before this happens.

You'd think these companies would better spend their time doing something constructive.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Re:Aye by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:31 · Score: 0

There is no such word as virii, the plural is viruses.
Re:Aye by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:12 · Score: 0

No, the correct plural is virus.

A change is really needed by dido · 2003-12-30 03:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

The original PC BIOS has incredibly remained basically unchanged since the days of the IBM PC, more than twenty years ago. We have all that legacy stuff in our PC's firmware that harks back to the days of MS-DOS and its limitations are being stretched to the breaking point by hacks and kluges (e.g. the disk size limits imposed by the real-mode BIOS calls). It would be nice to see it all go away for good.

On the other hand, it's Microsoft and Intel working together on this. This could very well be the next step towards the groundwork for Palladium, and more ugly DRM embedded into the lowest levels of PC hardware, that may well prevent anyone from running any operating system on commodity PC hardware besides that of Microsoft, among other baneful things. I'm not willing to bet that this new specification doesn't lay this type of groundwork in any way.

--
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.

Re:A change is really needed by krzysztof · 2003-12-30 03:41 · Score: 1

Please correct or enlighten me on this.

Is the reason the BIOS has been essentially unchanged for so long, because Intel (and others) wanted to keep binary compatability between versions? AFAIK (which isn't very far), the latest P4 chips are binary-compatible all the way back to the 8088. Wouldn't re-writing the BIOS at this stage break that compatability?

I'm not saying that such a move would necessarily be bad; I'm just curious.
Re:A change is really needed by dido · 2003-12-30 04:13 · Score: 1

The reason why the BIOS has remained essentially unchanged for so long is so that PC's could run what was at the time a significant quantity of legacy software. With some minor adjustments it is still possible to run programs from the most ancient ancient eras of PC history on the modern hardware, but this is IMHO better accomplished by use of a program like vmware or bochs. Today's PC's have hundreds or even up to tens of thousands of times the processing power of hardware from that era, and they can most certainly emulate through virtualization almost every piece of esoteric hardware from those bygone eras while hardly breaking out a sweat.

Besides, most of the really important legacy software from the era of perhaps up to a decade ago or so has long since been superseded and is no longer supported by anyone, and if anything is still useful from that time I would say it's classic DOS games, which again would be much better run with a virtualization system. You don't get the adverse effects of playing an arcade game with no frame limiter on too fast hardware. :)

--
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
Re:A change is really needed by GirTheRobot · 2003-12-30 04:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

The answer to this is really simple. Not everyone will be interested in this DRM crap, or even running Windows. China is forcefully moving towards Linux, and if Linux cannot run on these new boards, their govt. will buy/support/develop hardware that does. With an installed base that large (and relatively cash strapped), you KNOW that there will be cheap and relatively open hardware to run your choice of OS.

Screw MS and Intel. I have not purchased software or hardware from either in almost a decade. We have a free global market on our side, and their products are not necessary. These are just 2 US companies in a global market. Let the sheep enslave themselves. We have options.
Re:A change is really needed by poot_rootbeer · 2003-12-30 04:42 · Score: 1

that may well prevent anyone from running any operating system on commodity PC hardware besides that of Microsoft

Do you really think Intel has any interest in locking themselves into Microsoft? They're not dumb; they've seen how many companies have gotten into bed with MS only to wake up in the morning to the corporate equivalent of a bathtub full of ice and a missing vital organ.

Intel is working with MS today because it's the best way for Intel to make money. But I'm sure Intel could forecast a possible future where MS goes out of business and some other OS dominates the Intel hardware market. They'd be dumbasses to make a decision today that would doom them as well to failure should that ever happen.

Mac attack by pvt_medic · 2003-12-30 03:05 · Score: 1

I remember way back when, when the older macs had system extensions specific for that type of computer. The OS eventually moved towards a universal approach to different types of computers. Would that work or am I way off the deep end (it was a long night of drinking).

--
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll

Re:So? - What do you mean? by Markvs · 2003-12-30 03:06 · Score: 4, Funny

What do you mean when? I thought that decision was made back in 1994!

--
46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."

Registration-free spec by morcheeba · 2003-12-30 03:07 · Score: 4, Informative

The download page requires a fake name and email, but you can skip that and get the latest version (1.10-001) here. (Total karma whore link: EFI homepage)

The license isn't actually too bad - it just says that if you provide them feedback, then you also grant them the right to implement your idea.

--
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets

Real computer hardware by panurge · 2003-12-30 03:07 · Score: 1

Load the initial boot loader into the core memory using the front panel switches
Load the proper boot loader from tape using the initial boot loader
Change a couple of memory locations (too lazy to splice tape on bootstrap loader)
Reset and boot

What was so difficult about that we needed to change it?

--
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.

Re:Real computer hardware by hughk · 2003-12-30 03:35 · Score: 1

Did that with a PDP-8. Toggled in RIM, then used RIM to load the general purpose binary loader: BIM from paper tape. OS/8 then followed. Slowly.
Thank heavens, all the PDP-11s that I ended up using had a bootstrap ROM. Much easier. Paddle switches and lots of lights look impressive though.

--
See my journal, I write things there
Re:Real computer hardware by rcpitt · 2003-12-30 05:05 · Score: 1

Yeah - and you know, once you've gone through that kind of cycle a few times, you know the real reason for writing code that doesn't crash the machine.
What I liked about it was that it gave you time to think about the finer points of life. This fast-paced life we lead now is just too much sometimes. I long for the times of watching the paper tape reader shred my last tape; having to sticky-tape it together enough that I could read it by eye and punch a new one. You just can't get a better reason for slacking off than "the computer ate my boot tape"

--
Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
and didn't get it

Change? We don't need no stinkin' change. by Channard · 2003-12-30 03:07 · Score: 1

Change I can handle. Heck, the entire computer industry is BASED on change.

Or in some companies cases, turning you upside down and shaking you till the change comes out of your pockets.

Coming: The Year of the Infected Bios by Alien54 · 2003-12-30 03:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Seriously, the more complex you make the code in the bios, the more chance for security flaws built into the hardware itself.

Imagine the horror of having to patch a system by swapping out chips. I think I recall some old time viruses that basically screwed up the bios royally, and which were not easily cleanable, to one degree or another.

Remember, this design is supposed to be a feature, not a flaw.

--
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"

Re:Coming: The Year of the Infected Bios by PygmySurfer · 2003-12-30 03:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Imagine the horror of having to patch a system by swapping out chips. I think I recall some old time viruses that basically screwed up the bios royally, and which were not easily cleanable, to one degree or another.

Haven't BIOSes been using Flash memory for years now? Couldn't we just download the latest BIOS, and flash the chip? You know, kinda like we do now to fix bugs/add features.
Re:Coming: The Year of the Infected Bios by bhtooefr · 2003-12-30 03:49 · Score: 3, Informative

Those viruses (Win32.CIH, for one) DID attack Flash BIOSes. They rendered the system unbootable (unless there was an emergency backup on the mobo), so that the chip had to be thrown in a running box and flashed.
Re:Coming: The Year of the Infected Bios by Alien54 · 2003-12-30 05:54 · Score: 1

so that the chip had to be thrown in a running box and flashed.
but in the future, with a DRM system, the chip might be married to the motherboard anyhow, and you would wind up having to toss the motherboard anyhow.
Oh, and don't forget the posibility of trojans

--
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"

Will kill off legacy OS's by nurb432 · 2003-12-30 03:09 · Score: 1

At least on the new hardware a lot of legacy OS's wont function.

Force upgrades.. fun fun...

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:What about AMD and Sun? by nutznboltz · 2003-12-30 03:09 · Score: 2, Informative

Seems it's what's happening now. http://www.x86-64.org/

Alternatives by Mr+Pippin · 2003-12-30 03:11 · Score: 1

Though I already know the answer, what was wrong with "OpenFirmware/OpenBoot"?

It was already platform agnostic, extensible, and well known in the industry

Then again, anything created by Sun CAN'T be good (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)

Intel would never adopt OF by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

Take ACPI, for example. If you take out the P of ACPI, and stick to the configuration features, you end up with something very similar to (some parts of) OF. A device name tree? OF has it. An intermediate language for device initialization? OF has it.

OF has only one difference to ACPI: OF works. Devices are made with valid machine-language drivers, so that the OS doesn't have to patch it upon boot, etc, etc, etc. Don't take me wrong, I really believed that ACPI would be great, but when people started implementing it, we saw what mess it became. It was one of the reasons I moved away of the x86 platform. It is just a bunch of hacks.

So why Intel created ACPI? Because while ACPI is also "open", Intel can control it. And Intel knows that while it keeps the power of defining standards, it will be the leading chip manufacturer: it helps to keep it top of mind in terms of consumer ICs.

For those who don't know what OF is, take a look at this.

Re:Intel would never adopt OF by Burnon · 2003-12-30 04:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

So, earlier someone posted a link to a summrary of a discussion on the Linux kernel list. An Intel guy pointed out some issues with the Openfirmware model that make some sense.

The way I read it is, hardware manufacturers want cheap products, and nobody wants to get locked in to supporting just one system architecture for an expansion card.

With something like openfirmware, apparently you have to have a ROM big enough to contain valid code that can run on both IA-32 and IA-64 and PPC, etc., or you end up with things like PC-only and Mac-only cards, which isn't cheap, either. So as nasty as ACPI has been from an implementation point of view, it seems like it does some stuff that open firmware can't do. Same can be said for EFI. Seems like a hell of a problem to me - damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Now, that said, no arguments about the other fringe benefits Intel gets from pushing the standard.

P.S. To my mind, Linus' post on the issue in the thread seems like something that your average software dude (self included) might come up with. Come up with simple hardware specs that don't need ROM code, and standardize on THAT. I'd kill for that kind of utopia in my line of work. I don't work in PCs, I work in embedded systems. All the hardware guys talk about gaining a competitive edge by locking people into their proprietary hardware via a software interface that they control. Same thing going on here - it's not the software dudes in the industry that need convincing - it's the hardware and business dudes who aren't looking to the future, but to the next product.
Re:Intel would never adopt OF by BandwidthHog · 2003-12-30 04:54 · Score: 1

Some older info on Open Firmware is also available at bananajr6000.apple.com which I'm posting mainly because I love that domain name.

--

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Re:Intel would never adopt OF by Kymermosst · 2003-12-30 07:27 · Score: 4, Informative

With something like openfirmware, apparently you have to have a ROM big enough to contain valid code that can run on both IA-32 and IA-64 and PPC, etc., or you end up with things like PC-only and Mac-only cards...

Nope, plug-in drivers on Open Firmware compatible cards are written in FCODE, which is a Forth bytecode language.

Completely machine independent.

The article says that Open Firmware was considered, but they didn't want to drop ACPI.

Frankly, Open Firmware has a lot of features you are just never going to see on home machines/cheap server boxes as long as Intel and MS are in charge. I'd rather have OF on my server boxes, hence why I chose a Sun machine.

--
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Re:Intel would never adopt OF by statusbar · 2003-12-30 07:35 · Score: 1

OF is on my Mac at home... I don't understand why Intel didn't want to drop acpi... OF does solve lots of problems.

--jeff++

--
ipv6 is my vpn

Re:What about AMD and Sun? by 3lb4rt0 · 2003-12-30 03:13 · Score: 1

And if you thought AMDs ran hot now.... :D

What wasn's said by ben_white · 2003-12-30 03:14 · Score: 0, Flamebait

I know its not required, but I have just read the article ;-) I found this statement interesting:

The EFI specification is essentially a preboot environment that allows a PC to conduct activities such as scanning for viruses or running diagnostics.

They seemed to have left out the part about checking the digital signature of kernel to be loaded to make sure that it is authorized by the Department of Homeland Security, the MPAA, RIAA, and George W's pet dog. If you try to load commie software like linux Mr. Ashcroft will be at your door and you will find yourself in Guantanamo ! Just a random thought.

--
cheers, ben

Never miss a good chance to shut up -- Will Rogers

corepirate nazis: end to independent intelligence? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:15 · Score: 0

just a wink of an eyecon, & a click, & you're...where?

Gah! DRM in BIOS? Check please! by CarrionBird · 2003-12-30 03:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

The day that takes hold is the day I find a new platform, it's not like x86 is the only game in town.

Heck, older SGI Octanes are going for peanuts (comapared to thier original price) on ebay, and they are mostly upgradeable to current spec. And Apple is over there just drooling for my cash.

There really shouldn't be that much going on in BIOS, that's what the whole B part means, ya know.

--
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's

Re:Gah! DRM in BIOS? Check please! by drix · 2003-12-30 03:20 · Score: 1

And Apple is over there just drooling for my cash.

Yeah, well, you would be too if you could successfully charge your customers 100% markup over comparable x86 hardware and have them lining up begging to pay it.

--

I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Re:Gah! DRM in BIOS? Check please! by cdf123 · 2003-12-30 03:32 · Score: 2, Funny

... There really shouldn't be that much going on in BIOS, that's what the whole B part means, ya know.
Bloated?

I'm a BIOS programmer and I don't see the end... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:16 · Score: 0

Rename it and change its functionality all you want, but the day that the CPU itself figures out how to configure all the components in your PC is the day I might be out of work.

There's still going to be a BIOS, there probably always will be until we go completely System On a Chip. In the meantime, SOMETHING has to initialize all your hardware and get it ready to load an O/S.

What about Windows and Linux by nycsubway · 2003-12-30 03:16 · Score: 3, Funny

I think Windows and Linux should form a joint platform. Windows OS with Linux firmware, called Windex!

--
http://github.com/gbook/nidb

Re:What about Apple? by NineNine · 2003-12-30 03:19 · Score: 4, Funny

I agree. I see the same thing with Apple. Every time I buy a Macintosh, I have the hardest time getting W2K to run on them. Damn lock in.

Now we'll be patching our bios' as much as windows by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:19 · Score: 1, Interesting

Now the bios will have to be patched as frequently as windows because they'll mess it up the first 38 times. New types of security vulnerabilities, new viruses, new exploits. Normally I don't jump on the "hate microsoft/linux fanboy" shit nor the "I just saw the matrix so I believe in saying choice/freedom a lot" shit, but this is where things can get bad. The beauty of the 20 year old bios is that its stable in that it lacks any real features and most people don't use it unless they have to enable bootable CDs, recieving an email in OE won't kill it. Hopefully someone will tell the joe sixpacks of america that this is bad and he wants to buy a computer from a source that doesn't include this. I mean microsoft can't require this to install, can they? My hope is that a big stink will be created and a company like dell will bitch and use another bios. Or apple could use this and take some converts. Or every slashdotter's wet dream will come true and everyone's grandmother will be recompiling kernels.

MS Should become the evil twin of Apple.... by droptop · 2003-12-30 03:20 · Score: 1

Microsoft should just simply BUY Intel.... Then start manufacturing their own, closed proprietary boxes for Windows. They can then have an optimized platform for their OS that they can then show off, they will be able to better control crashing and freezing (security will still suck), and overall performance. And then they can LEAVE THE REST OF US ALONE!!!!! Let us all have our Industry Standard parts so we can continue to build our own systems that BELONG TO US to run whatever OS we wish, loading only those services WE CHOOSE, in order to do OUR WORK (or play), the way WE CHOOSE. The idea of MS locking down EVERYTHING and "convincing" our gubber-ment it's a "good thing" simply and truly makes me physically ill. I use a Mac primarily, and prefer it to all others I've experienced.... But that does not give me the right to shove it down everyone else's throats. If someone wants to have a simple, cheap box in their basement to run a firewall, a VPN dial-in, and email, they should be able to do that on something that runs at only 200MHz and all running processes taking up only about 24MB of RAM. Just try doing THAT on something you don't build yourself! With Microsoft in charge, you won't be able to anymore. We need Hardware vendors right-now that are willing to produce an Open Source Hardware Spec, and back that up with the actual chip sets.... If this MS/Intel thing takes off, the market will be there for sure!

--
change it.

Re:MS Should become the evil twin of Apple.... by SnapperHead · 2003-12-30 07:02 · Score: 1

If you where to give MS that kind of power, things would be MUCH worse then now. Lets think about this:

The first people to buy these new machines would be newbies and die hard MS fans (all 4 of them).

Over time, as people start buying them, more manufactures want to be compatible with these new devices. They start releasing products that work just for these new machines. Few years down the line, they start dropping support for the "normal computers".

Blah blah blah, in the end it would be the death of the "normal" machines.

Sure, I belive that BIOS could use some updating. I find it funny as hell that there is an option for a 5-1/4 low density drive in BIOS for my new dual AMD Opteron machine. I think its fairly safe to say, we can drop support for 5-1/4 floppys (and 8" :)

Eitherway, I am sure there are ways to improve how it works, performance, etc.

However, MS is *NOT* the company they should be only listening to. Intel does this a lot recently, and they are basicly shooting them selfs in the foot.

Anyway, this idea will prolly die off, BIOS (like our friend the 5-1/4" floppy) are hard to kill off. Many have tried, all have failed. I just hope that AMD doesn't follow Intel.

--
until (succeed) try { again(); }

End of BIOS bio by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:20 · Score: 1, Funny

BIOS was found dead in a Scottsdale motel room, bound and in a leather mask. Police are on the lookout for an EFI (Extensible Firmware Interface). Said interface should be in fine physical shape, but its extensibility may make it hard to recognize. If you see this EFI, do not attempt to turn it on.

Well, well... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:21 · Score: 0

..if that isn't an innovation that might catch up faster than the american-monopoly-law-suit against it's inventor.

A sad day for AMD, the others and competition.

DOS partition = Micro$oft Royalty? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:22 · Score: 1, Insightful

Hmmmmm, seems I remember a post in the not so distant past that microsoft won a suit to gain royalties from DOS. Does this mean that a mandated DOS partition means someone has to pay $$$'s to M$?

Until BIOS is outlawed.. by nurb432 · 2003-12-30 03:22 · Score: 1

Then only outlaws will use a BIOS.

Seriously though, all it will take is enough senators with a wild burr that think allowing people access to their pcs directly is evil ( and only terrorists want it ) for new useable hardware to become a thing of the past.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Performance by ajaf · 2003-12-30 03:25 · Score: 1

Ok, here is a tip, change your lilo executable to windows.exe and your intel processor will be faster!!!

--
ajf

Re:Performance by FooAtWFU · 2003-12-30 03:39 · Score: 1

Last time I checked, it was 'win.com' not 'windows.exe' :)

--
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.

OF is based on Forth? by eer · 2003-12-30 03:25 · Score: 2, Funny

Forth?

Wasn't Postscript good enough for them?

No wonder it's not hit mainstream.

Re:OF is based on Forth? by AKAImBatman · 2003-12-30 03:38 · Score: 2, Informative

Forth?

Wasn't Postscript good enough for them?

Do you have any idea WTF you're talking about? Postscript is a document display language. Forth is a general purpose, turing complete, mathematics language. Quite a difference there.

Besides, it's not like you actually have to be able to code Forth to use OpenFirmware. It's just a feature.

No wonder it's not hit mainstream.

That is, if you don't consider Apple, Sun, IBM, HP OR JUST ABOUT EVERY FREAKING COMPUTER MAKER OTHER THAN INTEL mainstream.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:OF is based on Forth? by ch-chuck · 2003-12-30 03:39 · Score: 1

Ever tried hacking on a Sun machine at the OpenBoot prompt, before the OS is even loaded? You can write programs just in the firmware, do arithmetic, create functions - it's kinda like those old home pc's that came with basic in rom, except it's FORTH in rom. Just type 'words' to see pages and pages of (admittedly strange looking) predefined functions to work with the hardware at a direct cli level.

Try doing that w/ a common PC bios!

--
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Re:OF is based on Forth? by xaoslaad · 2003-12-30 03:50 · Score: 1

A friend and I purchased Sun Ultra 5's off ebay to do some learning. We were interested in Solaris, OpenBoot, and so on. We figured if we each purchased one along with Linux PC's backing our adventures we could get pretty into it.

Anyway, I received mine and it looked pristine; literally like they had just pulled it out of the box. The 'scratch' that they had listed on the auction was actually more of a mark on the side.

My friend wasn't so lucky. He received his and it looked like it survived operation in a bunker during WWII somewhere in the Pacific theatre. To top it all off we couldn't 'see' the disk. Anyway after seeing probe-scsi listed as a command we adapted and overcame -- typed probe-ide and from the output (forget the specifics) it was blatantly obvious the HDD had blown its brains out. I've never seen a PC BIOS diagnose a disk quite like that; so we replaced the disk with a spare sitting around and the battle hardened little box loaded solaris and booted fine.

All in all I had a healthy respect for OB from that point on and it was only the beginning of monkeying with the system. I must say just on that experience alone I'd rather see something like OB on the PC rather than EFI.
Re:OF is based on Forth? by squiggleslash · 2003-12-30 03:58 · Score: 1

Postscript is, indeed, a complete general purpose Turing-complete (infinitely long tapes notwithstanding...) mathematics language, that comes with a command library oriented to controlling printers. Have a fiddle with some of the files that come with Ghostscript one day, you'll be glad you did.
Postscript is, however, more high-level than Forth, it's to Forth as Python is to C. Chuck Moore probably doesn't approve...

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:OF is based on Forth? by eer · 2003-12-30 04:13 · Score: 1

That was a joke, son - as others have replied, Postscript, too, is a turing complete language and, if I recall, something of a postfix notation language like forth, as well.
I liked Sun's pre-boot shell just fine...but I haven't had much use for it in the past decade. I welcome more sophisticated pre-boot console systems, but I do NOT welcome entry points for hackers and virus writers to screw with my system before my OS has a chance to get started.
This migration away from BIOS is, indeed, overdue, and is certainly wrapped up in the direction of LeGrand and TPM environments.
Question is, what's the OF crowd doing about automated registration (and qualification against "certified" model/versions) of DMA and PCI bus device controllers? If I decide, at some point, that I no longer "trust" Intel intelligent network interface cards (because their firmware isn't using a GPL-friendly version of S/WAN in it's integrated IPSEC implementation), what will OF do to tell me / warn me that a "tainted" device has been added to a system I'm trying to trust (ASP hosted Apache server, or whatever)?
Re:OF is based on Forth? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:25 · Score: 0

I'd just like to point out like the others did that PostScript is turing complete, and that you actually can program in it.

Haw haw! Fatality!
Re:OF is based on Forth? by AKAImBatman · 2003-12-30 04:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

My apologies. Unfortunately, your post came across a bit trollish, so I responded as such.

I liked Sun's pre-boot shell just fine...but I haven't had much use for it in the past decade. I welcome more sophisticated pre-boot console systems, but I do NOT welcome entry points for hackers and virus writers to screw with my system before my OS has a chance to get started.

In the many years that OpenBoot/OpenFirmware has existed, it has generally proved itself to be secure except in situations of physical compromise (a damning situation anyway). This makes it a far more ideal choice than a new firmware standard that has not yet withstood a trial by fire.

Question is, what's the OF crowd doing about automated registration (and qualification against "certified" model/versions) of DMA and PCI bus device controllers? If I decide, at some point, that I no longer "trust" Intel intelligent network interface cards (because their firmware isn't using a GPL-friendly version of S/WAN in it's integrated IPSEC implementation), what will OF do to tell me / warn me that a "tainted" device has been added to a system I'm trying to trust (ASP hosted Apache server, or whatever)?

I'm not really sure this is a necessary feature. You (as the admin of your box) have made a decision to add a piece of hardware. Relying on the firmware to warn you that you may be crossing the barrier of your ideals, is out of scope for such technology.

Most "driver signing" to date, has been implemented by Microsoft as an attempt to improve their image. With computers other than PCs, users would never dream of installing hardware that wasn't first approved by the vendor. Microsoft however, is a software only company and thus by default has very little control over hardware. So Microsoft set to the task of adding signed drivers to their OS to prevent non-Microsoft hardware from being installed.

Now I won't argue that OpenFirmware on Intel wouldn't run into the same problem as Microsoft. However, it would be relatively simple to add signature support to an Intel implementation to accomplish the same goal as Microsoft.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:OF is based on Forth? by eer · 2003-12-30 05:50 · Score: 1

My apologies - No sweat.
You (as the admin of your box) - actually, I'm proposing the scenario in which you are hosting your web or blog site at another site, perhaps relying on it's SSL or anonymizer technology, and you would like to be able to inspect (ie, receive a remote attestation as to) the configuration of the machine. That's not too different from what happens in a large corporation with remote datacenters and computers being managed by technicians (repair or otherwise) or even out-sourced EDS operators. My argument is that remote attestation may be useful to the ongoing audit of computer resources, going hand in hand with patch management and software version control.
Most "driver signing" to date, has been implemented by Microsoft as an attempt to improve their image - or, to lock out other vendors providing alternative implementations of certain functionality. Microsoft has argued that it's necessary for them to maintain the integrity of the OS Trusted Comptuting Base in order to sustain their security value proposition for customers, but other companies, including Novell (for whom I work), have offered replacement dlls designed to, for instance, replace the data storage for the SAM subsystem in NT (the bit that creates signed access control tokens used by NT/Domains to allow delegation and remote access to file shares and other applications), with the intent of having SAM use directory-resident information (ala NDS for NT) instead of a local machine-resident registry. In NT4, the dll that performed the storage had well defined interfaces we could export for SAM to use, which allowed us to replace the storage subsystem on which SAM relied. Customers got the advantage of distributed directory management of users and groups, without changing or disrupting SAM's security-sensitive functions of assembling group membership lists (taken from the storage subsystem) and signing tokens.
In Win2K (and AD), Microsoft began using signed dlls that had the effect of making it no longer possible for us to replace the storage dll, and locked customers into using AD if they wanted to use non-local identity store (we had to fall back to replicating with AD to provide identity management for Win2K accounts, with all the accompaning issues of synchronization across multiple vendor directories to deal with).
The point is that Microsoft, in this instance, chose to use one technology (signed modules) in a way that locked out other vendors, instead of using it in a way that would allow a customer to choose their own management paradigm. If they'd provided a framework in which we could sign our DLLs and have them recognized by their loader (all it would take is one more level in their PKI hierarchy - it's not reasonable for them to sign our modules, nor for us to submit our modules to them to be signed).
The lesson for those seeking to extend TCBs via signed code is to please include enough room in the PKI hierarchy to allow independant signers to be trusted in customer systems when customers make a knowledgeable decision to accept them, and not to simply use signed code as a way to limit competition.
Re:OF is based on Forth? by AKAImBatman · 2003-12-30 06:10 · Score: 1

actually, I'm proposing the scenario in which you are hosting your web or blog site at another site, perhaps relying on it's SSL or anonymizer technology, and you would like to be able to inspect (ie, receive a remote attestation as to) the configuration of the machine.

In those situations, you are trusting the company which you signed with. You can still peruse the device hierarchy and point out what you don't like, but you somewhat gave up your freedom of the machine when you contracted out.

The point is that Microsoft, in this instance, chose to use one technology (signed modules) in a way that locked out other vendors, instead of using it in a way that would allow a customer to choose their own management paradigm.

I certainly won't argue that Microsoft's intentions are often less than honorable. However, this does nothing to change the situation pertaining to OpenFirmware. OpenFirmware is still (IMHO) the best choice, and Intel's NIH syndrome is not going to help anyone.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade

sounds like Open Firmware by inditek · 2003-12-30 03:26 · Score: 2, Informative

This sounds like what Apple/IBM/Motorola/Sun started doing a long time ago with Open Firmware:

http://www.openfirmware.org/
http://playground. sun.com/1275/
http://developer.apple.com/technote s/tn/tn1061.htm l
http://bananajr6000.apple.com/

Scam Alert by TerryAtWork · 2003-12-30 03:26 · Score: 1

This is definitely a scam by the suits to get back the personal computer thing they let slip away from them, that mutated in the internet monster that is now eating their lunch.

Don't forget a lot of established businesses count on people's ignorance and lack of options. When they lose those things, profits go down and we cant have that!

--
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.

EFI == DRM? by AwesomeJT · 2003-12-30 03:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't trust anything Microsoft writes. I certainly don't want them writing BIOS level stuff before their buggy OS gets loaded.

However, I'm wondering if this is how they will integrate digital rights management that the MPAA and RIAA want soo badly forced on to consumers computers? This could be it. Everyone's computer must authenticate with the Master Server in Redmond. :-)

Beyond that, this just means we'll blue screen faster or on detection of a non-MS operating system.

Personally I find fault with the logic of it's old therefore it's broken.

--
SPAM solution made easy: 1 spammer, 5 cords of rope, 5 hourses, and fireworks. Be creative.

Re:EFI == DRM? by mrkurt · 2003-12-30 03:55 · Score: 1

I just read an article from ZDNet (essentially verbatim of the news.com article) that described the way that EFI works. It will allow "pre-boot" software modules to be run. It is ostensibly touted as a just a way for the hardware to be started before the OS finishes loading, like running device drivers before the OS proper loads. But if you can write pre-boot SW to run before the OS itself loads, it definitely sounds like a way to implement DRM. Best of all, you don't have to flash a new BIOS with Intel's scheme-- just load new SW modules.

It will be interesting to see if Linux/Unix will be able to implement this scheme, and how they do it. I would tend to agree with you that BIOS really isn't that much of a problem if you have a recent processor and enough memory-- my P4 boots relatively quickly. This is really about all the other junk MS wants to cram down users' throats.

--
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)

No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by t0ny · 2003-12-30 03:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

So in other words, since its not specifically good for Linux it shouldnt be done? Everybody needs to understand a few things about PCs and the BIOS as well-

This stuff runs essentially the same as it did in the 80s. Sure, it uses more memory, bigger hard drives, etc, but its all just built from the same thing. Which leads into #2-

The solutions which were created to deal with things (such as the BIOS) were only intended, by their creators, to be temporary solutions until somebody designed something better. However, the IBM PC became a standard, and everything since then been built upon that foundation.

So, for the first time in decades, people are looking at the PC and trying to make it better. Why cant we have computers which boot up in seconds, rather than minutes? Why cant we have power saving which actually works? Those features, and many more, will only be possible with a redesign. The old way of doing things carries too much baggage.

Its sad, because I had always thought computer people always look for the best way to do things. Unfortunately, computer people are just like everyone else, and all too willing to accept the status quo.

--

Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by jejones · 2003-12-30 03:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

So in other words, since its not specifically good for Linux it shouldnt be done?

That's an inaccurate paraphrase. The concern, and a valid one, IMHO, is that MS will attempt to use this to lock out competition. IOW, the question is whether this is going to be designed to be specifically bad for Linux.
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by fingusernames · 2003-12-30 03:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why doesn't the computer boot in seconds? Well, my latest Windows PC gets past the BIOS in a couple seconds. It then starts loading the OS. With Windows, the hard drive grinds and grinds and grinds, and then grinds some more, as it loads who knows what. It takes much, much longer to get Windows into memory and operating than the BIOS. Seems Windows might be the candidate for the complete re-write if fast bootup is your goal.

What I would like to see in the default standard PC BIOS is remote control via ethernet. Be able to reboot a machine remotely and get console access from the moment the machine powers up, without an add-in board.

Larry
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by ChuyMatt · 2003-12-30 03:58 · Score: 1

But what they will do (most decidedly so, 'cause that is what they do...) is block out all other OSs. Sure, the BIOS needs an overhaul, but doing this is not helping anyone.
Apple changed out their way of doing "BIOS" a few years ago with open firmware. Sure did not stop me from installing Yellow Dog Linux or (this was a bad move) BeOS once. Point being, why do they need to shut out other OSs in order to make it work? they don't. It is all about money and forced market share for the uninformed.
Oh well. Who knows, maybe they will figure out how to get a security hole, root access via the "Firmware".
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:02 · Score: 1, Interesting

We do look for the best way. Unfortunately, be certain that this approach from M$ will be proprietary and linked *directly* into their old "Palladium" project, designed to take control of "licensing" hardware in order to operate.

This is critical to companies concerned about copying CD's and DVD's with desktop hardware, but also provides BIOS-restricted rather than OS-restricted control for using any hardware. How.... "surprising" if such control is used to prevent open source tools from even being able to boot the hard drive.

M$ and Intel will resist, fiercely, the ability to load your own tools in EFI.
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:06 · Score: 0

Windows could certainly use some help booting up faster, and you didn't say it explicitly, but I sure hope you're not trying to imply that Linux has any edge here. It takes 2-3 times longer, sometimes more.
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by Dr.+Descartes · 2003-12-30 04:08 · Score: 1

Very good points. But why must it be that it is Microsoft and Intel that are working on the new progress? Microsoft's bad behavior is well documented. There's only MS and Intel working together; no consortium of hardware and software makers? I like the OpenGL model. Plenty of developers all involved in creating standards. Since we're dealing with core processes here, it would seem to follow to be the best method (for consumers).
Furthermore, what happened to Microsoft's deal with Phoenix? MS seems to be working very hard on asserting at least some degree of influence on the low level operations of PCs.

Skepticism seems the best m.o. I, for one, don't quite welcome our new booting overlords quite yet.
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:16 · Score: 1, Insightful

What I would like to see in the default standard PC BIOS is remote control via ethernet. Be able to reboot a machine remotely and get console access from the moment the machine powers up, without an add-in board.

Gee, that doesn't sound at all like a security hole, no. Nothing to see here-- move along, move along :)

(Don't see it my way? Think about it-- the BIOS itself could be the ultimate remote root exploit, accessible whether you're running a virgin, unpatched Windows 98 or a hardened, fully up-to-date OpenBSD. You're not putting that "feature" on PCs anywhere in my company!)
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by Tim+C · 2003-12-30 04:30 · Score: 1

But why must it be that it is Microsoft and Intel that are working on the new progress?

R&D, especially into relatively new areas like this (rather than your core products) costs money, money that you many not see any return on.

MS and Intel, respectively, are pretty-much the richest players in their respective fields. Who else would you expect to see do it?

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by Tim+C · 2003-12-30 04:33 · Score: 1

Hold on their cowboy. Intel has nothing to gain by shutting out other OSes - they'll lose market share in the server space if nothing else, where Linux is popular and growing in popularity everyday.

MS has a much more clear-cut reason to try something like that, but think about it - if they don't try it, and create something that is usable by anyone, then they have something to point at. "Look! See! We're not being anti-competitive! We could have locked you all out for good, but we didn't!" Actually trying to lock out competing OSes would be an extremely dangerous move, imho.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:38 · Score: 0

Proprietry software generally leads to hardware lockin. Microsofts influence (and weakness when it comes to design) is backwards compatablity. On the other hand Gnu based systems are fairly platform agnostic.
I currently use gnu/linux and would love to escape pcs altogether, particularly the power-consumption which is far more important to me than the crappy bios. Decent risc-based laptops anyone?
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by t0ny · 2003-12-30 04:59 · Score: 1

Since MS is not getting into the motherboard (or chipset, or processor) business, yours is an invalid concern.
The hardware vendors are not going to lock out any other OS except Microsoft; what reason would they have to?

--
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by t0ny · 2003-12-30 05:07 · Score: 1

But why must it be that it is Microsoft and Intel that are working on the new progress?
They are the two major players in the computer world. When you have over 90% of the market, you either change or eventaully change will be thrust upon you.
Case in point: Intel vs. AMD. Intel may now have consumer level, affordable, and innovative 64-bit processors thrust upon them. For the first time, people are viewing AMD as more than just an Intel alternative.
So Microsoft can either fight against change, or try and lead it. But honestly, there is nobody else that cares to change things, or (most importantly) has the clout to make positive changes.
Furthermore, what happened to Microsoft's deal with Phoenix? MS seems to be working very hard on asserting at least some degree of influence on the low level operations of PCs.
As has been stated from the get-go, MS wants the features currently handled by the BIOS to be managed by the OS.
None of this is a plan to 'squeeze out' linux, especially when MS is just one member of the standards body moving this along.

--
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by Wise+Dragon · 2003-12-30 05:31 · Score: 4, Informative

It's already been designed, it already works with linux, and it's pretty neat. Right now you have to buy an Itanium machine to use it, though.
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 06:07 · Score: 0

This stuff runs essentially the same as it did in the 80s. Sure, it uses more memory, bigger hard drives, etc, but its all just built from the same thing.

Funny the same thing could be said of WinXP.

Just a random observation
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 06:26 · Score: 0

Nobody is locking out Linux. I wish these paranoid people would quit it with their delusions.

EFI is already supported for Linux-ia64.

Intel also submitted a patch for EFI on x86 for 2.6.0. Support for that will have to wait, though, until EFI is more established for 32-bit PCs.
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by sremick · 2003-12-30 06:27 · Score: 1

> Why cant we have computers which boot up in seconds, rather than minutes?
I have one already. Of course, it's running FreeBSD...
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 06:30 · Score: 0

For one: Kickbacks [commercial bribes] from Micro$oft!
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 06:32 · Score: 0

I agree with your appraisal - yes we computer geeks are often as guilty of being conservative ludites as the next person. But why? I am trying to resolve my own feelings about this. My Vulcan (logical) brain knows this is a good thing, we need better BIOS and this will be progress.

The bad feelings are very vague and border on angst, paranoia and FEAR. But they are very real. Things that have happened lately vis DCMA and Microsofts filthy devious behaviour leave me with no possible outlook than total distrust and suspicion. Microsoft and several other companies have proved that their greed for power and money comes before their desire for good science/software engineering, and the end result is we simply CANT TRUST THEM.

Its not the new technology I fear , its who is behind it.
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by Dylan_t_p · 2003-12-30 06:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

ah the paranioa of slashdot....don't get me wrong I'm not some micosoft fan boy, but why is it that everything that micrsoft does has to be some ploy to wipe out linux, if you could see past that (not to mention rtfa) you'd see the good implications that this has instead of just, help!! microsoft is out to get us
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by Quirk · 2003-12-30 06:50 · Score: 1

Its sad, because I had always thought computer people always look for the best way to do things. Unfortunately, computer people are just like everyone else, and all too willing to accept the status quo.
Remember the proprietory wars of the 80's when the standard was being born. There's a high degree of conservatism coming from the status quo inhibiting radical change because the entire industry has to climb on board to make any radical change viable. The market requires a standard that allows consumers to buy without having to make choices they're not informed enough to make.

--
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by JiggsJedi · 2003-12-30 06:55 · Score: 1

I see it this way...
The BIOS is on the Motherboard, so it will be up to the motherboard manufacturer's to decide WHAT they use, be it EFI or a "Legacy BIOS".
If Intel/Microsoft do abuse this venture to invoke DRM as a low-level system to monitor/control PC users, then the Motherboard manufacturers can decide NOT to use the new EFI chips or possibly build 2 kinds of boards - EFI Boards, and BIOS boards; or just specialize in one kind. AMD/Linux may not be included in the EFI "Trusted" list; or they may not want to be, so they can stick to standard BIOS and Intel/Microsoft can stick to EFI.
If that is the case, then I see an Intel/Microsoft/EFI "family" of PC's and an AMD/Linux/BIOS "family" of PC's.
This could be a good or a bad thing, it could create more separation in the PC world, or bring to fruition better and faster machines from one "family" trying to out do the other "family"; or both.
Seeing as the Intel/Microsft are FAR more expensive than their AMD/Linux cousins, it could lead to amazing competition and perhaps level the playing ground (TCO comes into play) - perhaps to "reintegrate" the familys in a few years, bringing their collective knowledge together to build a "super family" (for numerous reasons).
That's if AMD/Linux don't just wack the other family... :P
Just my 0.02
Jiggs

--
Women are like internet domains. All the ones I like are taken, but I can still get one from a strange country.
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 08:28 · Score: 0

> Just my 0.02
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by JiggsJedi · 2003-12-30 08:41 · Score: 1

I couldn't agree more.

--
Women are like internet domains. All the ones I like are taken, but I can still get one from a strange country.
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by Billly+Gates · 2003-12-30 08:52 · Score: 2, Funny

Nice but then you would end up with an Itanium???

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by phillk6751 · 2003-12-30 09:41 · Score: 0

Your argument is inaccurate...The point of the EFI is to allow the operating system to load drivers into the firmware when it installs, so that the bios can load up the drivers much quicker instead of reading from the harddrive, thus a much quicker boot up time. Most of your boot up time for windows is usually loading drivers.
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by Wise+Dragon · 2003-12-30 11:01 · Score: 1

http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/509 6/1/

As long as you're doing scientific work you wouldn't mind :)
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by Quino · 2003-12-30 11:31 · Score: 1

but why is it that everything that micrsoft does has to be some ploy to wipe out linux

It's not paranoid delusions -- MS wants to survive I'm sure, and right now I think wiping out Linux by any means necessary has to be the #1 priority at MS. Well, either that or compete on merit, in which case they're toast anyways (and I'm sure they've figured this out too).

Besides, this being a ploy to wipe out competition would be par for the course (and a long history at that). If this was an honest innovation, well, *that'd* be a first! It's certainly not the safe bet, IMHO, and would go against how MS has pretty much always made its living.

I've been wondering for some time what MS was going to do (if I were Bill Gates, and if like Bill Gates I didn't care about screwing over the very poeple that have made me all this money, what would I do?). Controlling the BIOS was something I had personally not considered, I've always assumed that MS would fight Linux through legal means instead. But, yeah, I have to admit that at this point, to me this move is pretty transparent, and it is designed for MS' only remaining, and scary as hell, competition.

If/when linux can boot from the same bios that MS and Intel have worked out*, I'll retract these statements and credit MS with honestly trying to improve something in the world of PCs. But it just doesn't make sense: if this is open to Linux, why would MS bother? MS only benefits when hardware is sold to run MS software. The good ol' Wintel doing things -- I don't think anyone needs to make excuses for being extremely skeptical at this point!

* world hackers got Linux to boot in the Xbox, despite MS' best efforts. Getting Linux to boot/run/utilize this BIOS *despite* wintel's best efforts doesn't count!
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 15:05 · Score: 0

Why would MS bother? For the same reason it (with Intel) has repeatedly extended the PC BIOS with semi-functional mechanisms like APM, and the much less hideous ACPI.

At the end of the day, the number one concern for both MS and Intel is that people buy PCs (since most of them include Intel CPUs and MS OSes). People won't buy new PCs unless they're better than the old ones, which is why Intel and MS are so eager to pour money into adding new features and replacing old crap like the BIOS (think about CGA, EGA, ISA, VLB, APM and all the other antiquated technologies that were rightly dumped long ago).

Given the current market reality, the fact that a small minority of people will use AMD and Linux systems that take advantage of standards developed by Intel and MS is not nearly enough to remove the incentive of increasing sales of PCs, which is what it's really all about (and why Dell, HP, IBM, et al. tolerate Intel and Microsoft, as well as the wild-eyed GNU hippies who are helping them displace Unix on RISC).

Finally, you may be interested to know that there are already systems that use EFI instead of the antiquated PC BIOS, and that *shock* Linux runs just fine on them. Like 99% of the paranoid, self-aggrandising drivel that comes from the Slashdot crowd, the 'M$ EFI conspiracy' against Linux exists only in their own minds. The people who actually write Linux, on the other hand, aren't held back by this irrational fear/hatred of all things designed (in part or in whole) by MS. If they had been, Linux would be next to useless on modern PCs.
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 15:18 · Score: 0

Windows hides the details from you, but it's basically doing the same thing every other OS does during startup. If you try a more techie-friendly OS like FreeBSD, you'll see that most of the boot time is spent interrogating the hardware and loading/initialising the appropriate drivers. (With BSD, there's still an element of manual configuration, though, where as Windows does auto-detection of everything.)

One of the reasons it takes so long for the OS to figure out what sort of hardware a machine is using, and then set it up, is that the PC BIOS is so horrid. If you ever use high-range workstation hardware from firms like DEC/HP and IBM, you'll come to realise just how bad the PC BIOS is.
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 16:48 · Score: 0

Maybe you should try upgrading or reloading your shitbox. Mine doesn't "grind".
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by kasperd · 2003-12-31 00:54 · Score: 1

Gee, that doesn't sound at all like a security hole, no.

It is only a security hole if not done correctly. There already exist diskeless machines, that will boot from an image on a server on the network. You of course only want to do such a thing on a trusted localnet. I'd like my computers to be completely controlled through a network interface, but please give us some extra ethernet interfaces and clearly mark one of them the console interface. Of course I wouldn't want the console interface connected to the internet. Using it for the inside interface on a NAT box would be acceptable, but I would prefer having an extra interface.

--

Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by t0ny · 2003-12-31 02:57 · Score: 1

It's not paranoid delusions -- MS wants to survive I'm sure, and right now I think wiping out Linux by any means necessary has to be the #1 priority at MS.
I think you are giving Linux too much credit as a competitor. For them to be a threat, they would need a significant percentage of the market, which they even come close to having. Apple is more of a threat than Linux, and I dont see Gates trying to shut them down. Quite the opposite: Steve Jobs would be blowing guys for beer money if it werent for Gates.
BTW, MS Office is Microsoft's cash cow, not Windows. So their survival isnt necessarily tied to Windows, as you implied. Also, their target market is (and always has been) corporate customers, not home users or hobbyists.
Well, either that or compete on merit, in which case they're toast anyways (and I'm sure they've figured this out too).
I beleive the existing market forces have judged you wrong on this, too: MS seems to be doing just fine. BTW, what are your credentials to judge MS products? Because I dont accept criticism from people who arent experts with Windows 2000 or 2003 as valid; my oft-repeated phrase is "I only accept expert opinions from experts."
At any rate, it seems that if anybody needs to compete on merit, it is Linux. Windows does a ton of things Linux cant, so concentrate on improving your OS rather than criticizing someone else's.
If this was an honest innovation, well, *that'd* be a first!
Unlike creating the Win32 architecture which MS uses, or making a desktop client OS which can attach to (and work on) any network, or even "Plug and Play". I guess you dont view any of that, or tons of other things they have done, as innovative.
world hackers got Linux to boot in the Xbox, despite MS' best efforts.
But, it cant connect to XBox Live if you modify the BIOS. Which is really why MS was preventing people from fuxoring the XBox- they want to keep the cheaters off the Live service. Im sure Nintendo isnt helping people run Linux on the GameCube, but somehow you dont view that as an anti-linux conspiracy. Again, you are making false correlations and giving Linux way too much credit as real competition.
If/when linux can boot from the same bios that MS and Intel have worked out*,
1. RTFA
2. Microsoft and Intel arent going to write anything for your OS. The Linux community will just have to improve Linux themselves, how sad. You guys always say the great thing about linux is that you can write your own improvements, but when hardware changes and something needs to be changed/improved, all of a sudden you start saying other people need to make it work with Linux. Do it yourself, d00d!
But it just doesn't make sense: if this is open to Linux, why would MS bother?
Because it will improve computing in general. And since MS *is* computing in general, it will mostly benefit them just by economics of scale. Also, does anybody else have the clout to get computer makers to improve their product? Nope.
MS only benefits when hardware is sold to run MS software
That makes no sense. MS doesnt make any money off motherboard sales, directly or indirectly. They only make money on purchases of Microsoft products.
This is mostly a waste of time anyway. Im sure nothing I can say will make you see how wrong you are, because you are so convinced their is a conspiracy afoot.

--
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by Jahf · 2003-12-31 11:33 · Score: 1

What I would like to see in the default standard PC BIOS is remote control via ethernet. Be able to reboot a machine remotely and get console access from the moment the machine powers up, without an add-in board.

Already exists in a lot of server machines. I know that the Intel server motherboards (used in the Sun V60x and V65x for instance) support this. I'm pretty sure Dell, IBM and others support this. There are reasons why x86 servers are more costly than desktop machines. If you really need such functionality I would be surprised if you couldn't find it in some of the high-end motherboards and simply make yourself a custom system.

--
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! by 4of12 · 2004-01-06 08:18 · Score: 1

IOW, the question is whether this is going to be designed to be specifically bad for Linux.

Strictly speaking, no.

If there is anyway to leverage the technology to make it good for Microsoft, Intel, etc., then be assured that will happen.

--
"Provided by the management for your protection."

All main boards & BIOS will be from China, by NewToNix · 2003-12-30 03:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

And other places that do not want to be tied into the US controll/monopoly.

You can see the way it is going now, open source adopted by other (I'm USA) governments (this is good, IMO).

The same will be true of the BIOS chips & even MB chip sets - they (forgin governments) are sharp enough to know it's a bad idea to have your system locked down (or into) something some one else has controll over.

So we buy all our stuff from overseas now, for price reasons. Soon we will be buying from them for freedom reasons (this may NOT bode well for the price we may have to pay in the future).

The day may be coming when we have to smuggle BIOS chips and/or Main Boards into the US, just to try to keep some freedom.

This may not be quite as "tinfoil hat" as it sounds now. Remember no one is looking out for your freedom - that task is up to you.

NewToNix - I lent my sig to a really nice government man, but he never returned it.

But if we don't reinvent the wheel every year... by Doktor+Memory · 2003-12-30 03:34 · Score: 1

...how will we justify our bloated salaries and budgets?

I mean...Open Firmware is mature, stable and tested. It works for Sun, Apple and IBM. Right there, that's reason enough not to use it. :)

--

News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.

Re:Does this mean it'll crash before loading Windo by RCO · 2003-12-30 03:34 · Score: 1

Not necessarily, it just provides the possibility of getting a BSOD with any OS.

--
'And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo Every day you meet quite a few...'

What lock-in? by Valdrax · 2003-12-30 03:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

Someone above has posted a link from Kernel Traffic which explains quite nicely the fact that Linux already has early support for EFI as part of the IA-64 port (which has been backported to IA-32) and has a nice lenghty explanation from Intel about why they made certain design decisions that they did.

It all ends with a statement by an Intel person that none of what they're pushing as a standard is patented so that it can be as openly and widely adopted as possible. I'm pretty sure that no vendor lock-in will happen here.

--
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").

Re:What lock-in? by Kwil · 2003-12-30 06:08 · Score: 1
I'm pretty sure that no vendor lock-in will happen here.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

Here's the key: Like most technologies, EFI has both good and bad aspects.

Among the bad aspects is that it makes possible a completely locked down OS. One that ensures your computer is entirely trusted (by the OS vendor) from the moment the power switch goes on.

What this works out to mean is that the software vendor can, finally, entirely control what programs actually run on your computer if they so desire. They can prevent non-signed programs from being run at the same time as their OS. They can ensure that reverse assemblers, unauthorized music rippers, or basically anything that people might use to manipulate data in ways the corporation(s) do not like is not able to be run on your OS.

At the same time they can also ensure that all the data that runs or is viewable on their OS is encrypted so that it cannot be viewed on other OS's, and that you cannot bleed off the unencrypted data through some sort of hardware hack.

Now, when you combine this with Palladium, where they can set access rights on everything including e-mail, and you have a great strategy for lock-in.
- Stage one is to get a good number of people using DRM capable machines without using DRM features.
- Stage two is to start pushing the DRM features: Keep your email from prying eyes. Keep your documents from prying eyes. Have your old emails expire. Control who sees your videos. Get people used to the idea that some content requires them to enter "protected" mode. They generally see the same functionality in either mode, so soon they just stay in that mode.
- Stage three, make protected mode the default, thus forcing more people to use it as mails from grandma become impossible to view otherwise. At the same time, spammers now have to sign their messages accurately, so spam drops like a rock. Everybody hails this as wonderful.
- Stage four, since everybody is running in protected mode anyway, lock the hardware so it automatically rejects downloading anything created in non-protected mode. Push this on to Cisco and the routers under the banner of protecting people from virii as well
At this point, anybody NOT using a protected mode is locked out. Suddenly all it takes is a minor bureaucratic finagling and Linux applications and data that they create are no longer recognized as being "signed" for a few months by Windows machines (thank goodness automatic updates let these root certificates be spread to everybody)

How's that for lock-in?
--
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Re:What lock-in? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 06:16 · Score: 0

none of what they're pushing as a standard is patented so that it can be as openly and widely adopted as possible.
One word: FAT.
Re:What lock-in? by Valdrax · 2003-12-30 07:55 · Score: 1

So what does EFI have to do with TCPA? EFI could have DRM grafted onto it, but it's not a part of the default standard. This is a total non-issue unless vendors start adopting DRM, which puts us at where we are today only now with drivers that don't have to share a 128k window, don't have to be hardwired to certain interrupt lines, and can be flashed into cards and peripherals as interpretable byte-code that runs on multiple platforms.

You aren't even talking about the same technology here.

--
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Re:What lock-in? by Valdrax · 2003-12-30 08:02 · Score: 1

Eh. I see. Okay, so EFI makes grafting DRM onto itself easier than with current BIOSes, but I don't think that the fact that it's currently hard to do DRM in the BIOS due to BIOS being a limited, outdated technology as a strong reason to avoid EFI.

--
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").

Re:damn both of em... by actionvance · 2003-12-30 03:37 · Score: 0

I understand your apprehension towards "lock-in", but understand this: capitalism can be a great accelerator of product evolution. What you call "lock-in" -- some call "strategy". Strategy can enforce a sort of stronghold on a given sector.... that stronghold can be COMPLETELY artificial (strat based), Based on good product, or on a combination of strategy based and "good enough". that stronghold ensures that product "moving in" on that given territory will need to be ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE BETTER than what's currently out there. I dont know that we have seen a quality difference like that since doze 3.1 vs ANYTHING ELSE.

This may seem strange at first.. but by Deleriux · 2003-12-30 03:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Have you ever thought that the BIOS industry is trying to head down the way the mobile phone industry is? I mean, for example (in the UK anyway) your mobile phone is probably the biggest big brother device you own. If you buy a pay-as-you-go phone or a contract phone you need to phone the vendor after your contract has ended (or never, on pay-as-you-go) to get a code that 'unlocks' your phone, allowing you to insert any sim card from a competitor they want. Imagine the potential contracts you could develop using a similar method for PC's? Buy one of these hire purchase pc's that get paid out over 3 years (many families and people on budgets do this, probably dont need to tell anyone here its not a bargain as in 3 years that machine will be pretty worthless to other peoples standards). Then, after the 3 years is up.. you can pay another $40/40 in 'admin' charge to be sent a usb flash key or other data storage medium that unlocks your machine enabling another type of o/s? You could massively decrease the cost of o/s and pc in a home market while locking home users into draconian contract schemes disallowing certain applications, or o/s's (covered by DRM of course), after which time when the pc is worthless you can have all the features you want.. most home users not knowing any different will probably settle for a return scheme where they pay up for another 2 years for the upgraded version of the machine and so it goes on and on and on. I mean, if you really think about it it really doesnt seem such a crazy idea. It worked with mobile phones and an implementation like this in the future doesnt actually look that far off now.

Product Activation by MacFury · 2003-12-30 03:38 · Score: 1

Not too far off...if this thing contains a serial number, and more companies move towards product activation with real information being required. (give us your home address, we mail you something that you mail back to us)

Wouldn't be too hard to keep a database of people and what software they install on there computers.

What advantage does EFI provide to end-users? by DJStealth · 2003-12-30 03:40 · Score: 1

The article does not seem to provide much information other than the fact that Intel & Microsoft want to rewrite the BIOS, call it EFI and that it makes it easier to make updates/plugins to the bios since you now don't need to code in ASM.

Great for OEM's, but what does it do for the consumer?

Re:What about Apple? by Hes+Nikke · 2003-12-30 03:44 · Score: 1

I agree. I see the same thing with Apple. Every time I buy a Macintosh, I have the hardest time getting W2K to run on them. Damn lock in.

works well enough for me. although my last new mac was a 32 bit machine ;)

--
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.

Maybe light at the end of the tunnel... by MoeMoe · 2003-12-30 03:45 · Score: 1

This just gives the courts and the people another chance to imply that MS, and now Intel are monopolizing the computer industry. If you took DRM and Palladium to low level firmware, how would those like AMD or the Linux community be able to compete if their software or hardware is locked out due to this "technology"?

It's just my opinion, but I think if MS and Intel were smart, they would release the code or atleast throw away the idea of implementing DRM/Palladium into this, and keep it invisioned a little later on in the boot sequence...

--
Business \Busi"ness\, n.;
A scam in which all people involved perceive as beneficial...

Universal drivers? by arendjr · 2003-12-30 03:45 · Score: 1

The framework, called Platform Innovation Framework for EFI and sometimes referred to by the code name Tiano, allows PC makers to write preboot software modules, which are similar to Windows drivers, designed to get a PC's hardware up and running before handing off control of it to the operating system.

Does this also mean we get universal drivers instead of OS-specific drivers? If this is the case, it would abondon the need for Linux-specific drivers and actually turn out to be an advantage...
Of course, the specification would need to be really open for that to work.

So, how do we stop this? by Quixadhal · 2003-12-30 03:46 · Score: 1

What's wrong with OpenFirmware? Hasn't that been used for 10 years or so now? Why re-invent the wheel in a way that won't be compatible with anyone else... oh yeah, I forgot who we were talking about for a sec.

Why only one BIOS for a board? by carndearg · 2003-12-30 03:46 · Score: 1

I'm not a low level expert so can someone please explain whether the following is possible.

A motherboard is a load of hardware, a processor and a chunk of flash memory, right? When you turn it on, it looks in the flash memory and runs the code there. It could be the good ol' BIOS, it could be LinuxBios, Open Firmware, the Intel/Microsoft DRM thing, whatever.

So would it be unreasonable to expect to see a motherboard shipped with a CD with several alternative BIOS-like interfaces for the customer to choose the one they would like to re-flash the board with? Most boards would stick with the Wintel route, that's what monopolies are about, but if customers want an alternative someone will sell it to them.

The players to watch here are not Intel or M$. They are the motherboard and chipset makers in Taiwan. These are the people to whom what the customer wants _really_ matters and they have proved themselves quite capable of going against the party line when it suits them in the past. Just as a graphics card manufacturer has to provide Linux support these days, so will a motherboard manufacturer in the future if they expect to be taken seriously by the early adopters.

--
Oxford Dictionaries Online

Actually, that's not true by SalesEngineer · 2003-12-30 03:48 · Score: 1

Intel's EFI Framework allows for a 'Compatibility Support Module' (CSM) that the board vendor can put in the firmware. It basically provides runtime services just like a legacy BIOS.

Link to presentation

The whole thing is designed so the OS can use EFI firmware interface or a legacy BIOS interface, so one platform can support both. Even though it adds some size to the firmware image, it makes the industry transition easier.

that is a warming article by tr0p · 2003-12-30 03:49 · Score: 1

The tone of that article really makes me cautious. I'm glad they are consoling me, because other wise one might think EFI==trojanHorse.

--

My only regret... is that I have... bonitis..

Oh Goodie by Jerk+City+Troll · 2003-12-30 03:50 · Score: 0, Troll

I can't wait to put critical hardware into the hands of Microsoft. I foresee stability and no conflict of interest whatsoever.

--
Join Tor today!

Mod Parent As Funny +1 by benad · 2003-12-30 03:51 · Score: 1

Nice joke... You *do* realize what you just said *has* to be a joke, right?

Re:Mod Parent As Funny +1 by jandrese · 2003-12-30 06:36 · Score: 1

That was Intel's official stance on the issue. They don't want to use OpenFirmware because it doesn't support ACPI. It seems wierd to me because ACPI support is 95% in the OS, it's not like the Firmware needs to do much to support it.

--

I read the internet for the articles.

AMD to the rescue? by Dachannien · 2003-12-30 03:51 · Score: 1

There are plenty of previous versions of Windows that work Just Fine Now (well, as Windows goes), and this EFI deal pretty obviously won't work with Linux (which is incredibly popular among Internet-connected machines). Linux isn't going to die, no matter how much WinTel tries to make it happen.

On the other hand, Intel could be shooting itself in the market-dominance foot here, what with them providing AMD/VIA/Linux or AMD/nVidia/Linux the perfect opportunity to come up with a non-DRM, non-Trusted-Computing alternative that will work with both Linux and older versions of Windows.

Re:AMD to the rescue? by dimss · 2003-12-30 04:19 · Score: 1

That's true. There are many people who use OS other than MS Windows.

Wintel is not an absolute monopoly. Competitors of Wintel are alive. If they will provide us hardware for our software, Wintel will loose twice.

It's time to take a look at Apple and new Sun/AMD computers.
Re:AMD to the rescue? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 05:51 · Score: 0

Content will require DRM OS/Mobo for copyrighted works. In other words if AMD/ don't have DRM controls in there...

Hopefully if the content is difficult enough for an end user to play (ie not enough users can play it for lack of newer os/hardware in a down economy) - they won't patronize that media source...and it will all go away...hopefully...
Re:AMD to the rescue? by j-turkey · 2003-12-30 08:43 · Score: 1

On the other hand, Intel could be shooting itself in the market-dominance foot here, what with them providing AMD/VIA/Linux or AMD/nVidia/Linux the perfect opportunity to come up with a non-DRM, non-Trusted-Computing alternative that will work with both Linux and older versions of Windows.

I kinda doubt that Intel will be hurting itself with this. They're releasing a new BIOS that will essentially appease MS and the rest of the DRM crowd. It will help to put Microsoft in a position to make content owners/providers feel secure and either give their business to MS, or a third party developer whose software requires an MS OS to run on.

However, AFAIK, Intel has not announced that they'll be abandoning the traditional BIOS. Furthermore, I didn't see any announcement that Intel will be building new CPU's that will only work with their new BIOS replacement. Even if Intel stops making traditional BIOS chipsets -- there are other manufacturers who will continue to supply the market as long as there is demand -- like VIA, Phoenix, nVidia, American Megatrends, etc, etc, etc. These boards (except for nVidia's) should all support the Intel chips so we can be DRM-free for a long, long time.

Worst case scenario, MS adopts these BIOS replacements for DRM exclusively, and our old chipsets get slightly more expensive. (Actually, the worst case scenario is if Congress passes a law requiring all of our computers to have MS/Intel DRM in the hardware, but I digress.) We're all still happy, and Intel will still be making a shitload of money.

--turkey

--

-Turkey
Re:AMD to the rescue? by Dachannien · 2003-12-30 13:06 · Score: 1

Just a note that Phoenix is planning to switch entirely to a trusted computing model for future BIOSes, so we will all need to be very careful about which mobos we buy in the future.

BIOS vendors disabling PC Weasel by tepples · 2003-12-30 03:51 · Score: 1

Now watch BIOS vendors become upset that somebody's using desktop BIOS for a server app, and watch them disable the PC Weasel "circumvention device" by using actual 640x480-pixel 16-color graphics in the BIOS setup.

EFI IS CRAP!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:52 · Score: 2, Informative

EFI would be a total nightmare.

Vendor-supplied drivers without source are going to be BUGGY.

They are going to be doubly buggy if they are run with a compiler that has a buggy back-end.

And that back-end is going to be buggy if it's for some random bytecode that isn't widely used except for some silly EFI thing and is tested exclusively with just a few versions of Windows and _maybe_ occasionally on Linux.

Face it: firmware bytecode is a total braindamage. The only thing that works is _source_code_ that can be fixed, and lacking that, we're better off with a well-defined ISA that people are used to and that has stable simple compilers.

In other words: x86 object code is a better choice than some random new bytecode. It's a "bytecode" too, after all. And it's one that is stable and runs fast on most hardware. But as long as it's some kind of binary (and byte code is binary, don't make any mistake about it), it's going to always be broken.

EFI is doing all the wrong things. Trying to fix BIOSes by being "more generic". It's going to be a total nightmare if you go down that path.

What will work is:

standard hardware interfaces. Instead of working on bytecode interpreters, make the f*cking hardware definition instead, and make it SANE and PUBLIC! So that we can write drivers that work, and that come with source so that we can fix them when somebody has buggy hardware.

DO NOT MAKE ANOTHER FRIGGING BYTECODE INTERPRETER!

Didn't Intel learn anything from past mistakes? ACPI was supposed to be "simple". Codswallop.

PCI works, because it had standard, and documented, hardware interfaces. The interfaces aren't well specified enough to write a PCI disk driver, of course, but they _are_ good enough to do discovery and a lot of things.

Intel _could_ make a "PCI disk controller interface definition", and it will work. The way USB does actually work, and UHCI was actually a fair standard, even if it left _way_ too much to software.

Source code. LinuxBIOS works today, and is a lot more flexible than EFI will _ever_ be.
Compatibility. Make hardware that works with old drivers and old BIOSes. This works, just like cmdrtaco works his love sausage into rob malda every evening. The fact that Intel forgot about that with ia-64 is not an excuse to make _more_ mistakes.

Don't screw this up. EFI is not going in the right direction.

Notice the boot faster? by dremspider · 2003-12-30 03:53 · Score: 0

I have an Athlon XP 1700+ and my friend has a P4 2.8 w/ HT and the works one thing we have noticed is his is insanely slow to boot up. My machine is booted into windows waiting for me while he is just sitting their watching the bar go by. I am not sre what AMD has done, or maybe VIA on my motherboard, but my machine boots in a little under 20 seconds, I can live w/ that.

This is PS/2 2.0 by RealProgrammer · 2003-12-30 03:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

No, not PlayStation. "Personal System /2", IBM's attempt in 1985-86 to rewrite the PC Industry Standard Architecture into their own proprietary version. They charged a measely 5% licensing fee (in a market where margins were already in that range).

I predict this will die because:

Hardware incompatibility with somebody
It will be slooow to boot
It already makes my tin hat glow

Oh, and Microsoft is drifting into irrelevance.

--
sigs, as if you care.

WHO THE FUCK IS LINUS? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 03:55 · Score: 0

I'm new here, can you tell me who Linus is?

Re:WHO THE FUCK IS LINUS? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:31 · Score: 0

He is a very smart Charlie Brown character. Or is he the inventor of Linux? I can't quite remember.
Re:WHO THE FUCK IS LINUS? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:40 · Score: 0

im not sure either, can soemone fill us in?!?!?

Macs are not mainstream by tepples · 2003-12-30 03:59 · Score: 1

Postscript is a document display language. Forth is a general purpose, turing complete, mathematics language. Quite a difference there.

PostScript is Turing complete and, in theory, more general-purpose than its graphics-language stigma would suggest. Would an HTTP server written in PostScript convince you? But I agree that Forth would be a better choice because it's positively tiny.

That is, if you don't consider Apple, Sun, IBM, HP OR JUST ABOUT EVERY FREAKING COMPUTER MAKER OTHER THAN INTEL mainstream.

Sun and HP are by no means "mainstream" on the home desktop. Apple is not "mainstream" on the home desktop until more proprietary software designed for Mac OS appears on the shelves of Best Buy stores. Of your list, this leaves IBM, all of whose home desktop machines use x86 processors and BIOS.

Re:Macs are not mainstream by AKAImBatman · 2003-12-30 04:17 · Score: 1

Sun and HP are by no means "mainstream" on the home desktop

No one specified the desktop. Nor should it really matter.

Apple is not "mainstream" on the home desktop until more proprietary software designed for Mac OS appears on the shelves of Best Buy stores.

I think you're making the mistake of thinking that only new Apple machines used OpenFirmware. Macs have used OF for a VERY long time, especially back when they were neck in neck with the PC market. I think they qualify as "Mainstream Desktop". (Speaking of which, I happen to be typing this on an iBook. Note the lack of spelling errors. Now if Apple would only add a grammar checker...)

ostScript is Turing complete and, in theory, more general-purpose than its graphics-language stigma would suggest. Would an HTTP server written in PostScript convince you?

I'm well aware of the power of Postscript, having coded some of it in my time. As a super-advanced LOGO, it's great. As a general-purpose, turing complete language, it's not so great.

There's an old saying, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

Still, I was unaware that Postscript was actually turing complete. Thanks for clearing that up.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:Macs are not mainstream by aonaran · 2003-12-30 04:17 · Score: 1

I'd have to disagree about HP not being a mainstream home PC, but they are in the same boat as IBM (home PCs use BIOS)
Re:Macs are not mainstream by tepples · 2003-12-30 05:00 · Score: 1

I recognize that I had forgotten about HP Pavilion PCs.

No one specified the desktop. Nor should it really matter.

In order to get brand recognition, you have to be on the desktop. A CTO with an HP PC on her desk sees the HP logo every day and is more likely to standardize on HP servers.

Macs have used OF for a VERY long time

Did "old world" pre-iMac computers use OF?

especially back when they were neck in neck with the PC market.

"Were" doesn't matter in 2006 when all new x86 PCs have digital restrictions management, among other features that make it hard for a competing OS vendor to get its OS to boot, and old x86 PCs are breaking down.
Re:Macs are not mainstream by squiggleslash · 2003-12-30 05:13 · Score: 1

Did "old world" pre-iMac computers use OF?
Yep. All PCI based Macs, back to 1995, use OF. Which, indeed, raises an interesting point, the move from Old World to New World suggests that OpenFirmware isn't as standardized and open as people think.
It's fairly difficult to boot an Old World Mac with anything other than Mac OS, for example (most Linux distributions get around this for OWMs by using Mac OS to boot the machine, and a program that runs on start-up to transfer control to Linux, though there are projects in development to get around this.)

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Macs are not mainstream by AKAImBatman · 2003-12-30 05:16 · Score: 1

Did "old world" pre-iMac computers use OF?

As you probably know, Apple had two versions of OpenFirmware: the "old world" pre-PowerPC and the "new world" post-PowerPC. About the oldest mention of Apple's firmware I can find on Usenet is 1996, so it has definitely been around for a VERY long time.

"Were" doesn't matter in 2006 when all new x86 PCs have digital restrictions management, among other features that make it hard for a competing OS vendor to get its OS to boot, and old x86 PCs are breaking down.

Pardon me for being realistic, but breaking your computer via security is NOT a "feature". I understand this may be Intel's intent, but that doesn't make it the best decision.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:Macs are not mainstream by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 05:17 · Score: 0

I'm pretty sure that most of the PPC "Old World" machines did use Open Firmware (if not all). I'm positive the Beige G3 did, as I had to use it a lot during the ~3 years of beta testing OS X/Rhapsody. I'm pretty sure that my 7200 in the basement was also an OF box, though I'd have to boot it again to be sure. They've been using it for a long time, though the further you go back the less useful it is. They've really done a lot to improve their implementation over the years.

I really need to get a Slashdot account...
Re:Macs are not mainstream by ChristTrekker · 2003-12-30 05:21 · Score: 1

Did "old world" pre-iMac computers use OF?

Yes. My beige G3 (OldWorld) does have OF. It's an older (and broken) implementation of OF. In fact, it's an OF error that's been preventing me from installing Jaguar. The "G1" Nubus PowerMacs did not have OF - that's what prevents them from booting NetBSD. AFAIK, all PowerMacs other than those x100's have OF, and good OF since the elimination of beige.

--
Constitutionally Correct
Re:Macs are not mainstream by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 09:02 · Score: 0

Sooo....once again, just about every computer still being manufactured today that doesn't use an x86 chipset has OpenFirmware in it...congrats on being moot.
Re:Macs are not mainstream by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 21:28 · Score: 0

Sooo....once again, just about every desktop computer still being manufactured today uses an x86 chipset...congrats on being moot.
Re:Macs are not mainstream by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-01 09:15 · Score: 0

They're referring to HP servers, such as the PA-RISC units. Not HP Pavilions/Kayaks, etc. which are all x86 PCs.

but linus was just babbling by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:01 · Score: 0

nothing he said actually made any sense

Trust no one? by Neurotoxic666 · 2003-12-30 04:02 · Score: 1, Insightful

Somehow, I feel a bit scared about this new thing. Just as if these companies would have even more control over what I do and see from my PC. Sounds paranoid, but it's not like no one was trying to spy on us (cough cough gator cough).

Now my question is, will we have any opportunity to buy hardware we can trust from independent companies in the future? Hardware that allows full privacy and control over the computer?

I understand there are already some alternatives, like other architectures than Intel's, and other OSes than Windows. But being in the website-design/computer graphics thing, I am (unfortunately) better served with Windows.

I feel concerned about all this but I depend on their stuff, and most "ordinary" PC users probably don't care. So it's easy to impose whatever-ware on that type of user. I am wondering if there's any way to avoid being spied on, to avoid being sued for what I do on my computer, and to keep control of my computer if such "monopolisticaly"-engineered devices become standard.

--
You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.

linux bios by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:06 · Score: 0

There is already a project called Linux BIOS that was intended to replace the BIOS with the linux kernel for cluster computers. The side effect is that parts of it are forming to be a replacement for BIOS allowing booting of any OS that doesn't rely on BIOS calls, that includes windows above win98/ME. I think they have both Win2k and WinXP booting.

http://www.linuxbios.org/

Re:linux bios by Brahmastra · 2003-12-30 05:52 · Score: 1

and how the hell is linux bios going to LEGALLY get all the Intel secret/confidential docs to write a BIOS for the latest and greatest chipsets?

Oh yeah, well my dad says... by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2003-12-30 04:06 · Score: 1

Well, I think that the other people on the website addressed all of linus' concerns regarding EFI. I certinaly respect Linus' opinion, but he's not God. He's not the only smart man in the world. It is ok to disagree with him.

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.

Re:Oh yeah, well my dad says... by Burnon · 2003-12-30 05:08 · Score: 1

It would have been nice to see Linus come back to it at some point, but it seems like he didn't (thread kind've peters off here, after Mark Doran posted on the goals behind EFI. Nobody responded directly to that thread with any sort of rebuttal, but one interesting post by Eric W. Biederman did come out and say:
Things change and evolve. So far I know of two distinct versions of EFI. The EFI that has been so nicely described by Mark Doran. And the version I have actually used with is quite a different animal.
So the gist of it (my read, it's not written down anywhere) is that EFI is looking to be a major pain in the neck for open source developers, akin to ACPI, probably for the same reasons that Linus posted. Closed hardware/software sucks...

What about Sun's PROM by little+alfalfa · 2003-12-30 04:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

I've always thought that Sun's PROM setup was much better than anything on any Wintel box. Serial console is standard. Booting your OS only requires configuring which disk to use. Hardware test tools built in. What's wrong with that?

Re:What about Sun's PROM by evilviper · 2003-12-30 07:53 · Score: 1

I've always thought that Sun's PROM setup was much better than anything on any Wintel box. Serial console is standard. Booting your OS only requires configuring which disk to use. Hardware test tools built in. What's wrong with that?

You've obviously not used many different platforms. It's certainly not just Sun. In reality, every system other than x86 is really that way... It's x86 that does things in a terrible, pointless, incompatible, nasty, strange way.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

"100 percent markup"? Please. by tepples · 2003-12-30 04:09 · Score: 1

The (mis)conception of "100 percent markup" of Macintosh computers vs. x86 computers comes mostly from Apple's choice (wise or not) to produce no $200 Walmart.com bargain-basement machine. Apple's midrange and high end remain roughly competitive with AMD kit.

Not true ! by CmdrGravy · 2003-12-30 04:13 · Score: 3, Informative

I don't know what Windows XP is like booting up but I have 2 pretty much identical machines one of which runs Win2k and one of which runs Mandrake 9.2

Quite often I turn them both on at the same time and I can always log into Gnome around 30-40 seconds faster than I can log into Win2K.

Re:Not true ! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:59 · Score: 0

Win2K takes much longer than WinXP. They really improved booting with XP.
Re:Not true ! by hkmwbz · 2003-12-30 05:05 · Score: 1

Windows XP starts up significantly faster than Windows 2000. Than any other Windows version, probably. We're talking far less than a minute here, maybe as little as 15-20 seconds. Neither Mandrake, SuSE, Slackware or Debian (which are the ones I've tried recently) start faster than XP - they take significantly longer.

Not that it really matters to me, though, since I keep my systems running 24/7 anyway.

--
Clever signature text goes here.
Re:Not true ! by Sylver+Dragon · 2003-12-30 05:09 · Score: 1

You should try WinXP on that windows box. Its basically the same OS, with a Crayola interface, but it boots in a small fraction of the time. My machine at home is ready for me to login in about 1 minute or less. My work machine is even faster (though it doesn't have the all the crap loaded on it that my home machine does).
Now, granted, WinXP does still have the problem of slowing down as you load software and such, but MS seems to have streamlined the boot considerably, especially when compared to Win2k. My 2k server, at home, takes forever to boot, though being a K6-2 450 with 256MB of RAM probably doesn't help.

--
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Re:Not true ! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 05:11 · Score: 0

So you never apply patches or any other software that did not come pre-loaded? What good is that machine?

I keep my Linux boxes and my windows box running 24/7 also. I just never have to reboot the Linux boxes or have them spontaneously do it for me.

My windows box is better than my wife! I know it will go down on me at least once a day, and I never have to buy it flowers for that privilege!
Re:Not true ! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 05:27 · Score: 0

Take it easy, I'm not trying to start a religious OS war here. I am simply stating my own experiences. I am not even saying that one is better than the other. To me, the bootup time is irrelevant because I don't have to start my PC every day before I start doing things.
Of course, rebooting might be necessary after applying patches, but that's another story. My point was that how long it takes to boot doesn't really bother me, but that XP starts faster than both 2000 and various Linux distributions I have tried.
And a tip if XP reboots - set it not to. It'll show the bluescreen instead and you might be able to figure out what's wrong. It's probably a buggy driver.
Re:Not true ! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 06:02 · Score: 0

Classy guy. I'm sure the women love you.
Re:Not true ! by stanmann · 2003-12-30 07:14 · Score: 1

Not IME, I have two boxes, running professional, xp and 2k. the 2k box is a 300mhz celery with 256M ram and a hardware raid 5. the xp box is a 1700 athlon with 1.5G ram. skipping the memory test the 2k box gets to login twice as fast as the xp box.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Re:Not true ! by Billly+Gates · 2003-12-30 08:54 · Score: 1

.. and with lite distros like Debian and FreeBSD, I can log in within 15 second on my athlonXP.

Xinet is quite bloated compared to gnu or BSD posix inet.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Not true ! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 12:18 · Score: 0

My linux box never needs to be (re)booted. It just runs and runs and runs and runs and runs and runs............
Re:Not true ! by tedgyz · 2004-01-04 02:25 · Score: 1

WinXP is smokin' fast at bootup. For the first time I can remember, it appears Microsoft actually addressed performance issues. XP is significantly faster than Win2K in several areas, such as bootup, and network interface switching.

I ran a head-to-head test with WinXP against RedHat 9 and XP won on bootup. This was on identical hardware. It isn't a perfect comparison, since RedHat loads more daemons, but I was quite surprised.

I've been boycotting XP because of the licence. After taking it for a test drive at work, I was suitably impressed. I'm not a Microsoft fan - in fact, I usually have something to gripe about them every day. However, XP is the lesser of all Windows evils, except for the draconian license policy. I run XP Pro. Does MS really think I'm going to pay $800 to license my 4 systems at home? Yeah, right!

--
"No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai

Technology and Control by molafson · 2003-12-30 04:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

I use a mac, you insensitive clod!

However, it has been obvious enough for the past few years that Microsoft, Intel, Dell et al. are pushing to reformulate the PC to become a "home appliance." Many consumers look forward to this eventuality, as the appliance-computer will focus on ease-of-use. However, these consumers are being hoodwinked. What they don't understand is that the increasing ease-of-use will be bought at the cost of their freedom.

Technological development often follows this pattern. As technologies become mainstream, they are often constrained and stifled. Their possible uses are severely limited not only to suit the "lowest common denominator" of user, but also to reflect the interests of big business and the bureaucracy.

For more on this, see Ursula Franklin's work which is incredibly insightful.

Read the EFI specs by jander · 2003-12-30 04:15 · Score: 2, Informative

First off - if you haven't already, read the EFI specs: http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/index.htm

This has a good overview of what efi is and entails, as well as the specifications for it.

There are some good things about it - hardware drivers are easier to develop for it, it allows booting off of non-standard devices, and in some ways very similar to openFirmware. There is also linux support for efi (at least on IA64)

However, it has some serious drawbacks:
The potential is there to implement DRM, and attempt to "lock out" non-signed binaries, etc...
It requires a 100 Mb efi (FAT) partition (so it appears useless for diskless servers)
It appears to me at least that there are some potential serious security flaws to the implementation

Overall, EFI doesn't add anything that LinuxBIOS doesn't (except that EFI has been "blessed" by Microsoft), and it appears to be intel's way of locking in the BIOS market.

--
An ounce of perception is worth a pound of obscure

Re:Read the EFI specs by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:58 · Score: 1, Insightful

It requires a 100 Mb efi (FAT) partition (so it appears useless for diskless servers)
Doesn't that cost money nowadays? Also wtf is a 100MB needed for? Code at this level has absolutely no business being that bloated.
Re:Read the EFI specs by dlapine · 2003-12-30 06:34 · Score: 1

As a user of EFI on a linux cluster, I can tell you specifically that a partition is not required for operation. It's an option, to let the user include extra useful utilities.

On our Intel Tiger 4 nodes, we have the /boot partition formated fat32 as we boot from local disk, but we do remote installs completely off a netboot as well.

--
The Internet has no garbage collection

Other possible OS issues as well.. by Dolphinzilla · 2003-12-30 04:15 · Score: 1

What about all the other Operating Systems that currently work on Intel platforms like VxWorks and QNX, With the significant effort (and money) required to use custom RT OS's with Intel hardware I can see this is going to be a major reason to NOT go with Intel hardware and stick with Motorola PPC based products.

rename it by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:17 · Score: 0

Just rename EFI to

BIOS 2

then it will be accepted.

Welcome to the world of BIOS viruses by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:19 · Score: 0

Now they can do more than wipe your firmware.....

What next? Return of Microchannel? by SillyKing · 2003-12-30 04:22 · Score: 1

If I am reading this correctly, you can have software drivers load pre-boot. Reminds me of the stack of IBM reference disks I keep tucked away in my cabinet here at work.

This didn't get widely adopted before, but I did find the reference disks usefull, but also annoying. I can see this somewhat snowballing to the point where there is a full-fledged embedded OS where the BIOS used to be, and you have to load software drivers for unusual cards (SCSI array controllers and such).

Even funnier would be down the road Intel and MS pushing embedded linux and a Z80 proc as a BIOS replacement!

RE: EFI by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:22 · Score: 0

Are we sure that EFI really stands for Extensible Firmware Interface?

Seems to me that it stands for Extensive FreeSoftware Interruption! :)

Volumes... by Svartalf · 2003-12-30 04:23 · Score: 1

Any of the "new-world" Macs happen to use it, all the Mac clones used it, and some models of early PowerMacs used it.

It's your BIOS for your machine whether you know it or not.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas

Re:Volumes... by MoneyT · 2003-12-30 04:39 · Score: 1

I realize that, the reply was to someone who said that the reason they won't use Open Firmware is because not everyone uses a mac. My point was whether it's a mac or not has nothing to do with useing Open Firmware.

--
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984

why by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:26 · Score: 0

this is a bunch of crap - why does intel have to work with M$ - this is exactly what is wrong with the industry. Intel should be working with it competitors to come up with a standard that all the os's can use. This way everyone's survives and the customers are the ones that benefit from having a choice. But far be it the customers benefit from anything this screwed up industry does.

They are just going to try to lock in people to windows and intel and thats it.

Look at who is first to do it - Gateway - ever try to buy a pc without windows from gateway -
ain't gonna happen - so I will never buy a pc from them and I hope others here do the same. That is the only way to get them to stop their cut throat busines practices.

This is all about lockin - not innovation.

fsck off Microsoft.

Sounds like something alphas had way back when by PalmKiller · 2003-12-30 04:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

Nothing to fear I think, Remember the bootloader for alpha processors that microsoft required to be flashed to boot NT? Basically it was nt bootloader instead of the alpha console. Well it was supposed to only boot windows, but with some engineering it booted milo, which booted linux. this mostly stemed from alpha having a console that set up hardware for booting unix style, someone also made a bootloader for linux for that firmware, I think it was called aboot or something like that for the console boot. Actually alpha had a much cooler way of handling hardware than a bios, it could actually set up and control hardware in intesting ways, so I am all for it if this is what they are going for.

Innermost? by bkhl · 2003-12-30 04:29 · Score: 1

I don't know a "innermost workings". Wouldn't that be microcode, or something...

Probably not... by Svartalf · 2003-12-30 04:31 · Score: 1

But I do happen to have a Forth overlay for Postscript lying about somewhere in my files from the SIG Forth meeting I'd attended when I was in college.

You ought to see what Chuck's come up with lately... Interesting to say the least.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas

Isn't this a dupe article? by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2003-12-30 04:40 · Score: 1

I specifically remember a "death of the BIOS" article last month some time.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."

The real scoop by salesgeek · 2003-12-30 04:46 · Score: 4, Funny

Whats the big deal here? Everyone knows bios is obsolete. It doesn't start with the all powerful internet letters "e" or "i". It doesn't have an embedded web browser. It can't play downloadable games. It even sounds all 80's - logo, DOS, bios, ROM... Not sexy. So here's the marketing redesign:

* Start with a leter "e" or "i". "e" is more powerful because it evokes environmentalist images of birds singing, clean water, air, beaches. I is too industrial... Let's go with E
* No StudlyCaps - Too 90s
* Avoid anything that sounds like a computer part from the movie Tron. To 80s.
* Add features that journalists want: pre-os software load (we don't want the OPERATING SYSTEM RUNNING THE COMPUTER), DRM, Support for hard drive loaded modules, and OnStar w/GPS for convenient assistance for law enforcement.

--
-- $G

Re:The real scoop by Alsee · 2003-12-30 18:17 · Score: 1

* Start with a leter "e"

e-

* Add features ... DRM

e-d

* Add ... OnStar w/GPS for convenient assistance for law enforcement."

e-do

* Add ... Support for hard drive loaded modules

e-dos

Bingo! e-dos, for the new Milleneum!

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Re:damn both of em... by RetroGeek · 2003-12-30 04:46 · Score: 1

capitalism can be a great accelerator of product evolution

No argument there.

But if there is only ONE product, with one or two companies controlling that product, then there is no incentive for evolution. Why spend money on R&D when you don't have to?

--

- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.

Well, actually, yes. by khasim · 2003-12-30 04:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

If it is not good for Linux, then it shouldn't be done.
After all, Linux runs on just about EVERY platform out there. From wrist watches to mainframes.
So, if there is something about this solution that RESTRICTS Linux's access, then isn't that sufficient warning that there are problems in this "solution"?
Is it possible to get the benefits proposed by this solution WITHOUT those restrictions?

Its sad, because I had always thought computer people always look for the best way to do things. Unfortunately, computer people are just like everyone else, and all too willing to accept the status quo.

Most of us do. But each person has a different idea of what is the "best way" to do something. That's why we have KDE and GNOME and all the others. That's why we have all those editors.
You list shorter boot times and better power savings. It appears that these are important to you. It appears that Linux compatibility is less important to you than those.
To others, that is reversed. They view Linux compatibility as more imporant than shorter boot times and better power savings.
Does that make them "wrong"?
You're posting on a pro-Linux site, asking why a solution that restricts Linux isn't popular here. While on a Microsoft-centric site, the response would be different.
It's all ones and zeros. There is no "right" or "wrong". Only design decisions based upon someone's criteria.

Absolute BS! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 04:58 · Score: 0

I am here from the MS apologist camp to say definitively that MS HAS NEVER DONE ANYTHING to try to kill competition. You should be ashamed of yourself for making such a suggestion. Bloody liber^h^h^h^h^h comm^h^h^h^h Slashdotters!

How did you do that? by khasim · 2003-12-30 05:00 · Score: 1

I only saw a couple instances of the BIOS being attacked and I ended up tossing the motherboards both times. I couldn't get anything to re-flash the chip. Wouldn't putting it in a different motherboard be the same because the BIOS is in charge of controlling the boot order?

I wouldn't risk moving a chip into a motherboard that is already up and running. I'd be worried about damaging that motherboard and ending up with two dead systems.

Re:How did you do that? by bhtooefr · 2003-12-30 06:40 · Score: 1

Well, there is throwing it into an EPROM burner, but that's something many people don't have.
Re:How did you do that? by Tackhead · 2003-12-30 06:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

> I wouldn't risk moving a chip into a motherboard that is already up and running. I'd be worried about damaging that motherboard and ending up with two dead systems.
If the OS isn't using BIOS, this is actually safe, with two caveats:
1) The OS shouldn't be making BIOS calls. Last thing you want is to be in the middle of a hard drive write operation when you yank the chip. (This risk is negligible for modern OSes)
2) Use a proper PLCC extractor for the chip. Shorting out contacts or breaking the socket with a screwdriver is bad. Pulling the chip properly is safe. You're just cutting/restoring power to the voltage, ground, and signal leads of the chip within milliseconds of each other -- the same way you are every time you power the machine up or down.
For the record, yes, YMMV, but yes, I've done this, and yes, it worked. (I was an I-Opener h4x0r; this was an PC masquerading as an embedded system that lacked a floppy, and for which later versions of the BIOS wouldn't boot from a hard drive. The "hot flash" was needed under those circumstances - boot a machine with a hard drive and a "good" BIOS, remove "good" chip while system powered up. Insert "bad" BIOS chip extracted from a nonbootable unit into empty socket of powered-up "good" machine. Reflash "bad" BIOS chip with data extracted from "good" BIOS chip. Power down. Insert "good" chip into your machine. Insert reflashed chip into formerly-nonbootable machine.)
I wouldn't recommend it as standard procedure, but if you don't have an EPROM/EEPROM burner, hot-swapping BIOS chips between live machines is a viable field expedient.

How do you spell that? by DrDebug · 2003-12-30 05:00 · Score: 1

Perhaps like --> O-P-E-N-B-O-O-T P-R-O-M, which Sun (and Apple) have been using for years?

Oh, wait a minute! That contains the word 'open'. That can't POSSIBLY by used in the same sentence as 'Microsoft'.... Duh....

ThinkPad 600-series "BIOS" by MsGeek · 2003-12-30 05:01 · Score: 1

Pain in the @$$. You have to hold down the F1 key and flick the power switch *at the same time* to get into their poor excuse for a "BIOS," Easy-Setup. Almost as hard to do as the 4-key combos to zap the PRAM or boot off an external device other than a CD-ROM on a Mac.

Easy-Setup is precisely what it sounds like: an interface for the brain dead that doesn't allow access to anything useful. It has diagnostics but they don't really work. Basically, to do any real setup of a ThinkPad, you have to use either the Windows program "ThinkPad Setup" or PS2.EXE, which is a DOS proggie for which you must have booted into DOS to use. Opening up a command line in Windows won't work. I think the latter is a leftover from the bad old days of MicroChannel. The Linux program tpctl can do some things that you can do in either ThinkPad Setup or PS2.EXE, but not everything.

That said, ThinkPads are still the best x86 Linux laptops. I guess that says less about the Linux friendliness of ThinkPads and more about the braindamaged design of other x86 laptops.The only thing that does Linux better on laptops are New World Macintosh laptops which have Open Firmware and can boot into Linux directly without even a nod or a wink to MacOS. It's interesting to see a lot of PowerBooks and iBooks being used by the really serious Linux developers...this is no accident. The advantages of a completely open standard booting system seem to outweigh the quirkiness that's still present in the PowerPC architecture.

--
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.

Re:ThinkPad 600-series "BIOS" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 12:58 · Score: 0

Almost as hard to do as the 4-key combos to zap the PRAM or boot off an external device other than a CD-ROM on a Mac.
Hold down "option." Click on the icon of the external device you wish to boot off of and then click on the right-arrow.
HTH. HAND.

Re:damn both of em... by actionvance · 2003-12-30 05:04 · Score: 0

Again, reverting back to economics, and a bit of wartime logic. the bigger/better the stronghold, the larger the booty.

Think of the econimic incentive to create the "next" bigger and better thing when in fact there ARE only a handful left. Instant rockstardom for any newcomers that make a splash.

Business drives technology. If a [tech] provider cannot grasp simple business -- where is the stability & longevity of thier product?

Under what rights? by tepples · 2003-12-30 05:21 · Score: 1

Copyright? There exists DOS other than MS-DOS.

Patent? The Microsoft FAT patents apply only to long file names.

Re:Intel Legacy Problem by just+someone · 2003-12-30 05:23 · Score: 1

Article Says:
"...Open Firmware was considered but dropped because it was not compatible with ACPI, and they did not want to dilute the momentum that had built up for ACPI."

From what little I understand of open firmware is that the "drivers" are forth programs. OF Rom's do not need the multiple architechure programs, but that the Intel legacy needs the multiple architechure (or maybe it's just a endian, wrong endian problem).

If it ain't broke, don't fix it! by gone.fishing · 2003-12-30 05:28 · Score: 1

Face it, there is little reason to fix BIOS, it works and it is reasonably simple. The reason M$ wants this is for DRM and I guess that the reason Intel wants it is because without Microsoft, they are just another chip maker.

Oppose this at all costs!
Send Intel an email today telling them how if they leave BIOS in the dust, you'll buy AMD, VIA, or ABI (Anything But Intel).

Re:If it ain't broke, don't fix it! by Xeger · 2003-12-30 06:12 · Score: 1

BIOS ain't broken? Then, pray tell, why does every modern OS stop using the BIOS ASAP after it's initialized?

For bootstrapping, power-on self test and simple initialization, I agree that the BIOS still does as good a job as it did ten years ago. But let us not forget that the BIOS was intended to be more than a bootstrap environment: it was originally a Basic Input/Output System. And as an I/O system it fails miserably. Its interrupt-driven interfaces are orders of magnitude slower than they need to be in order to keep up with today's hardware; its hardcoded lists of functions and subfunctions, and forced parameter-passing via register values are frightfully inextensible; BIOS code was never even designed to run in Protected Mode, which is where Wintel chips spend the vast majority of their time executing.

There was a time, circa DOS and Windows 3.1, when the BIOS still served a genuinely useful purpose. Even as far as Windows 95, you could still catch some machines occasionally using BIOS-driven disk I/O for compatability or in "Safe Mode." But those days are gone.

I'm not saying EFI is a great answer, of course -- I think it's a disastrous idea to store anything firmware-related on a disk partition, and I suspect that EFI's "optional" ability to store extensions on a dedicated disk partition will soon lead to disaster as OS vendors come to depend on it too much. We may also see EFI virii that are much more virulent than any boot sector virus around today.

Just because EFI ain't perfect, however, doesn't mean it ain't better than BIOS.
Re:If it ain't broke, don't fix it! by Fieldgeek · 2003-12-30 06:26 · Score: 1

I would agree that if it is not broke, don't fix it. Though some of the stuff in EFI does sound interesting and possibly good though I have long watched the execution of interesting and possibly good things fail. If I ever have to reboot my car because it says the driver failed...
Re:If it ain't broke, don't fix it! by gone.fishing · 2003-12-30 15:04 · Score: 1

Have you ever pulled in to a gas station and had an old car, perhaps a Model "T" or Model "A" pull into the pump next to you? On nice summer weekends in these parts, it happens quite frequently and, to me, it is quite reassuring.

Car technology has advanced a great deal since 1903 but those antique cars can still get their gas from the same pumps I can! While I recognize that there are a lot of differences between a gallon of gas and a BIOS chip the point is that when you keep certain basic things the same, a continuity is provided that kind of keeps obsolesence at bay. I would rather not go back to DOS, or even Windows 3.1 but knowing that at a certain core level, I am working with hardware that works the same way, I feel a little better.

I'm giving away my age here - but I had been working on computers for a few years when I first encountered BIOS. The first BIOS I worked with came on an 8" floppy and was the disk you booted before you could boot CP/M! A few years later IBM came out with the PC and the BIOS was on a chip but it performed the same basic functions that that BIOS disk did in CP/M. The BIOS was really the only "closed" part of the PC, everything else was open. This allowed many different manufacturers to build hardware and accessories for the PC. IBM only published some basic information on the BIOS which was eventually reverse engineered and the rest as they say is history.

My concern is that if the BIOS is replaced with something like EFI that Intel and Microsoft will essencially close the "new BIOS." This would lead to only a limited number of companys that would (once again) hold the "keys to the kingdom." They could shut out companies like AMD, VIA, as well as the open source community and companies like Novell, Oracle, AMI, Phoenix and perhaps even IBM. They could and probably would create new "methods" that would hide behind the protections that EFI could afford. They would only share the methods with companies that would license the rights.

It goes beyond what we consider DRM today. I am not against finding some way to give authors a way of protecting their works but when the gatekeepers can decide who has the right to create, that rubs me the wrong way.

You don't think they would do it? Look at how hard it has been for people to make Linux drivers for "Winmodems" or how difficult it has been for the open source community to build a Windows Emulator. Reverse engineering is hard even before you think about the restrictions that the DCMA introduced. You can bet they'll do it.

I'd like to keep my BIOS and not use much of what it has to offer because software has found better ways of doing it. Because at a very base level it keeps the playing field level.

Perhaps I am all wrong, and nobody would be happier than I if I am wrong. But do you really want to risk all the compatibility that we have today on something Microsoft and Intel control?

Whats the big deal? by dubman25 · 2003-12-30 05:28 · Score: 1

I have been testing 64 bit Linux on embedded EFI Itanium servers for the last year. I haven't seen any problems what-so-ever. EFI is just a pre-boot environment.

--
--dubman

Machine Boot Speed by Inhibit · 2003-12-30 05:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Why cant we have computers which boot up in seconds, rather than minutes?"

Maybe you're just useing the wrong operating system.. mine does boot up in seconds. And yes, if your entire well thought out argument is "but maybe it'll boot faster (insert sparkly eyes)!" I really don't need a redesign with DRM and driver preloading.. which sounds slower.

--
You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware

Re:What about AMD and Sun? by SpaceJunkie · 2003-12-30 05:37 · Score: 1

That site kinda makes me proud I have only bought AMD processors for a long time. My last Intel was a P90 overclocked to 110...

At least I am glad that some manufacturers are keeping the open source people in mind. The fact they are trying to sell me a decent product, not take away my rights with one - regardless of the open source situation - is a big bonus.. Kudos to AMD.

--
OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol

Hibernation by gilesjuk · 2003-12-30 05:42 · Score: 1

Would be quicker to boot a computer if hibernation was used all the time. Ok you'd have to recreate a RAM image everytime you installed new hardware or updated OS components, but that could be done automatically by the OS.

Did anyone ever consider...... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 05:44 · Score: 0

Has anyone ever considered the fact that there is no conspiracy here? Maybe somebody just said "Hey, this BIOS thing sucks, we should make it better"?

Everything always about Microsoft taking over & their secret plans of world domination.

Plain and simple truth people: Microsoft does not lay secret plans, they do not care about preventing linux from big thing. They are the giant that everyone hates. Why? Jealousy. Bill didn't sit when everyone went against him. He found a way to beat everyone. Don't like what MS is doing? Find a way to beat them.

Good things about EFI... by Abraxis · 2003-12-30 05:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

Without mentioning my previous employer by name, I spent most of 2003 working extensively with EFI.

I really don't think it's the terror people are making it out to be, despite MS's involvement.

EFI is essentially taking the higher level driver stuff and pushing it down into the system firmware. I think this could have cool benefits for Linux (and any other operating system, or anybody coding an OS).

For example:
If EFI becomes widespread, in theory you may never have to worry about installing a hardware driver again (for Linux or any other OS). EFI has an interpreter for EBC (EFI byte code). EBC drivers can be stored in the firmware of a pci/pcix card. When the system boots EFI interprets the EBC driver on the card, and presto! the new hardware is working on whatever EFI platform you are running it on. And since EFI provides a standard way to interface the hardware, the OS could operate without the need for further device drivers.

By the way, if you want to know more about EFI, you can score the specs here:
http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/agree.h tm

Re:Good things about EFI... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 07:07 · Score: 0

The EFI spec was also written entirely without Microsoft. The existing 1.10 specs & Intel's EFI Framework were all written at least a year before Microsoft got involved (they're just along for the ride to force the spec into the public domain).

EFI support already exists in the Linux kernel, and has been working on Itanium systems since 1999. Actually, EFI support is better in Linux than in any Windows product.

Can you say "Apple Macintosh" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 05:50 · Score: 0

In principal I would agree with what your saying, but since Microsoft is involved I don't believe any good will come of this.

Microsoft persuaded Intel to put a feature into the 386 processor to disable Digital Reseach's CP/M OS. This is well documented.

As accepting the "status quo"? Well face the "statistics" which would mean everyone should forget about BSD/Linux/BeOS and just use Microsoft software on their x86 boxes. Indeed we are not all using Microsoft software because WE DON'T HAVE TO! Modifying the BIOS could become an MS bootstrap which could be made difficult to circumvent if not illegal.

There is alway the Apple line of computers if you want cutting edge technology. They even install a custom version of BSD. [if only they weren't so expensive, unless you need one for business in which case they are a bargain]

Bottom line ... HISTORY TELL'S US: DON'T TRUST MICROSOFT

Re:I'm a BIOS programmer and I don't see the end.. by Brahmastra · 2003-12-30 05:50 · Score: 1

And even if a CPU itself figures out how to configure all the components in your PC, that would mean there is an equivalent of the BIOS in the CPU package and someone would still be needed to develop that. :)

Re:Intel Legacy Problem by Burnon · 2003-12-30 05:52 · Score: 1

When talking about existing solutions, Doran wrote:

Most alternatives would have significantly swelled the ROM container size requirement or the motherboard support overhead requirement or had licensing, IP or other impediments to deployment into the wider industry that we had no practical means to resolve.

Presumably, open firmware doesn't have IP impediments (I dunno myself). ROM size could be at issue: This page indicates that you can't get an openfirwmare image in less than 128Kbytes, and practically, 256Kbytes is probably needed. Doran stated that their interpreter was 18Kbytes uncompressed, which is a pretty measley fraction of 128Kbytes. Anyone have any idea of how big a fraction of the 128Kbytes the forth interpreter is for Open Firmware?

Granted, I'm making a few assumptions here, like, there really is a good technical reason for this, and then trying to find it. Odds are, this really is just a play for control of the standard, but it would be nice to get a little more insight into the technical differences.

Hopefully since Microsoft is loosing market share. by MrJerryNormandinSir · 2003-12-30 05:52 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Hopefully Microsoft will start loosing their grasp on the Market and will no longer control the hardware market. I'd love to see Open Standards take over.

Wait till RIAA finds out about this! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 05:52 · Score: 0

They'll probably get a law passed requiring the technology and DRM.

In other news, Intel and Microsoft Corp began by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 05:53 · Score: 0

to take their first steps of a
long journey into obscurity.

Meanwhile on a completely different spot of the
earth than _that_ lab... researchers are
hard at work designing the future generation
of hardware communication... I hope?

Is there an Open Hardware group at work on this
anywhere that I can donate to?

Intel and Microsoft, working hard and long into
the night to make SURE your computing experience
sucks.

EFI is useful by dlapine · 2003-12-30 05:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

If you run ia64 (all 5 of us :) ) you already run EFI. For some of you out there who may not have actually seen EFI in action, I'd thought I provide some small examples of what it looks like.

EFI does a running check of the hardware that it understands, drivers for which were provided by the Motherboard maker.

Here's a snapshot of the EFI SCAN on my INTEL Tiger4 system.:

EFI version 1.10 [14.61] Build flags: EFI64 Running on Intel(R) Itanium(R) 2 processor EFI_DEBUG
EFI IA-64 SDV/FDK (BIOS CallBacks) [Wed Jan 1 23:33:30 2003] - INTEL
Cache Enabled. This image MainEntry is at address 000000007FA02000
Searching for EFI 1.1 SCSI driver....
Scsi(Pun0,Lun0) MAXTOR ATLASU320_18_SCAB120 (320 MBytes/sec)
Scsi(Pun1,Lun0) MAXTOR ATLASU320_73_SCAB120 (320 MBytes/sec)
Scsi(Pun2,Lun0) MAXTOR ATLASU320_73_SCAB120 (320 MBytes/sec)
Scsi(Pun6,Lun0) ESG-SHV
Invoking PxeDhcp4 protocol to obtain IP address.

At the end of this, I get a menu that I can manually select from (cursor up and down), or let it automatically try the options(which can be modified to suit the user's needs). Here's a snapsnot:

EFI Boot Manager ver 1.10 [14.61]

Please select a boot option

Network Boot/Pci(1|0|0)/Mac(0007E9D8147A)
Linux
Floppy/Pci(1F|1)/Ata(Primary,Slave)
CD/DVD ROM/Pci(1F|1)/Ata(Primary,Master)
EFI Shell [Built-in]
Boot option maintenance menu

Use ^ and v to change option(s). Use Enter to select an option

As you can see, EFI has detected the network card, a bootable linux partition, the floppy (LS240 in this case), and the cdrom drive. Anything you can detect, you can boot off from.

The EFI shell option brings you into a shell. Once in the shell, you can easily switch to another filesystem by executing a changefilesystem command, similar to msdos:

fs1:

The shell prompt (for filesystem 0, which is the first filesystem EFI finds, whether its on a floppy, a cdrom, a harddrive, usb key, whatever)

fs0:\>

The shell looks like a dos shell, but runs commands that the motherboard manufacturer includes, such as "edit" "ls" "cat" "cp" "mount" and others. These commands live in ROM.

EFI understands the FAT32 filesystem and can perform operations on files living there including editing. EFI can access any FAT32 on any device EFI has a built-in driver for, and any device that the user can obtain an EFI driver for.

Another nice feature is that you can create a partition on the disk that efi will use to hold more commands, or updated commands, or drivers for newer hardware. These extra commands when then be available to you at boot time.

To the user, EFI looks almost like an built-in mini OS that understands enough of the hardware to give you several boot options, as well as the ability to manipulate files on the devices it sees.

I've seen no evidence of DRM support, or OS lock-in, but that certainly doesn't rule out the possibility. The thing is, EFI is enough of a standard that the user might have the possibility of replacing the stock EFI with some other version to meet their personal needs. This would certainly put us ahead of where we are with current vendor lockin on motherboard bios.

--
The Internet has no garbage collection

Re:EFI is useful by cortana · 2003-12-30 07:33 · Score: 1

Sounds sexy (except for the MS-DOSish behaviour for switching volumes and the use of the backslash as a directory separater). :)

But will it grok my ext3 and NTFS partitions? FAT32 is nice and all, but kinda useless to me, and I daresay most people. :(
Re:EFI is useful by thockin · 2003-12-30 08:43 · Score: 1

I think you left out the part about it REQUIRING a FAT partition to boot.

EFI is *fugly*. BIOS works, leave it alone. Do EFI for next-gen architectures, but for the sake of Pete, leave stuff that works alone.

We'll have 3 years of headache while vendors figure out why systems don't work with card X or OS Y.
Re:EFI is useful by dlapine · 2003-12-30 11:37 · Score: 1

No, it doesn't require a fat32 partition to boot.
I can boot any node I have into a remote install or a ramdisk based shell if I want. No harddrive required.

BIOS is ok for a home system, but its not much use for a cluster or a server. EFI gives you more options as to how to boot the system and more ability to troubleshoot if the disk is bad.

--
The Internet has no garbage collection
Re:EFI is useful by dlapine · 2003-12-30 11:40 · Score: 1

No reason why a driver couldn't or won't be written that enables ext3/reiserfs. The specs for both the filesystem and EFI are open. NTFS I don't know about, and doesn't matter to me as I won't use it. Just more Microsoftian lock-in. :)

--
The Internet has no garbage collection
Re:EFI is useful by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 14:49 · Score: 0

Network Boot/Pci(1|0|0)/Mac(0007E9D8147A)

I have your MAC address!
Prepare to be H@X0r3D!!!

just kidding....
Re:EFI is useful by iankerickson · 2003-12-30 17:42 · Score: 1

I won't dispute whether EFI is good or bad, since I know next to nothing about it. But you mentioned something interesting:

"EFI understands the FAT32 filesystem and can perform operations on files living there including editing. EFI can access any FAT32 on any device EFI has a built-in driver for, and any device that the user can obtain an EFI driver for."

There was an interesting story on /. a few days ago about how Microsoft was going to start _charging_ manufacturers of devices that infringed on their patents on LFN and what amounts to the FAT32 file system. Any OEM that sold hardware which used, implemented, or supported FAT32 was going to have to pony up a fee per item to Microsoft. The implication was that this would be for memory cards, like Compact Flash, SDIO, and USB flash keys, as if ONLY memory cards were going to be subject to this new licensing.

Hm.

If the new PC200x standard requires EFI, and EFI requires a FAT32 boot volume for loading drivers, will OEMs be required to license FAT32 "technology" in order to ship systems with EFI? Will this bring a return to the days when every OEM has to pony up $X to Microsoft, whether the PC will ever run Windows or not? Do they hope that EFI will end up being the new "Microsoft tax"?

Interesting. All the same, EFI sounds just like SRM (from the Alpha) warmed over. PPC and Alpha workstations from the 90s that ran NT needed a FAT file system as a system partition, and the OS was on the other, the "boot", partition.

--
Democracy. Whiskey. Sexy. Pick any two.

What's new here? by camelrider · 2003-12-30 06:01 · Score: 1

http://www.linuxbios.org/
This project has been around for quite a while.

Even "Sun" servers don't have that sort of thing by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 06:02 · Score: 0

You still need to connect you Sun server to a terminal just once to set the IP address, then you can hook it up in any part of the world and control it via SSH.

My Tyan mobo can also be controlled through the serial port, but you still need the KVM that first time!

LOSING Not --- 'loosing', You Fucking Jackass by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 06:09 · Score: 0

Stop spreading the disease... quit typing
until you learn how to use the fucking language.

A LOT is two words.
LOSE a game. NOT LOOSE! (sigh)

All you sheeple need to stop learning how to type
english from American college students.
THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO FUCKING SPELL!
They certainly don't know how to type....
Do yourself and everyone a favor.
Look everything up first before typing about it.

Re:Did anyone ever consider...... by Anonym0us+Cow+Herd · 2003-12-30 06:11 · Score: 1

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls but....

Has anyone ever considered the fact that there is no conspiracy here? Maybe somebody just said "Hey, this BIOS thing sucks, we should make it better"?

Yeah, let's consider for a moment.

Maybe someone just said, "this voting thing sucks, let's make it better with Diebold closed source e-voting".

Everything always about Microsoft taking over & their secret plans of world domination.

This would be a true statement if you remove the word "secret". The plans don't seem to be so secret. Microsoft people themselves say that they believe that 100% of the market is their fair share.

It's telling how easily you ignore Microsoft's loooong history.

Plain and simple truth people: Microsoft does not lay secret plans, they do not care about preventing linux from big thing.

They seem to care about preventing Linux very much. Have you seen the Haloween documents? Microsoft people discussing how to attack Linux.

They are the giant that everyone hates. Why? Jealousy.

Please.

There are other giants that everyone doesn't hate. In other industries. The reason everyone hates Microsoft is because of Microsoft's behavior. Plain and simple.

Don't like what MS is doing? Find a way to beat them.

Open Source is a way to beat them. There is no other way to beat them.

Microsoft is doing anything and everything possible to destroy open source. First they ignored it. Then they laughed at it. Then they started a FUD campaign.

Microsoft seems awfully interested in DRM, in Trusted Computing, in putting TCPA onto motherboards, and now in changing the BIOS. And I'm supposed to just believe, contrary to past evidence and common sense that this is not an attempt to cut off open source?

Let me summarize...

We are finding a way to beat them. It's called Open Source. Microsoft is trying to prevent Linux from becomming the next big thing. It is part of their not-so-secret plan. Microsoft does want to dominate everything and makes no secret of it.

Maybe someone just said "Hey, this open source thing sucks. We should make the BIOS better."

--
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

Re:What's new here? Answer: MICROSOFT by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 06:16 · Score: 0

You will be able to forget about Linux if Micro$oft get their grubby hands on the bios.

What else will be new? Blues screens from the bios and viruses before any OS even begins to load.

Don't thing something is inconceivable till Micro$oft have there attempt at "improving" it!

I ONLY HAVE ONE QUESTION by superpulpsicle · 2003-12-30 06:16 · Score: 1

What good will my PC hardware have when EFI hits the market full strength?

Re:Did anyone ever consider...... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 06:19 · Score: 0

Nice try Mr Balmer!

sif we are all living under a rock. Can we say CP/M , Netscape, OS/2 or Java ... why yes we can, and we all know AND remember what Microsoft did to them.

Along with... by mykepredko · 2003-12-30 06:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

IBM, Hitachi, Fujitsu and Siemens. IBM offers 32 bit systems based on EFI as well (I believe written by AMI).

I've been working with EFI based systems for three years now. Nicer than BIOS/MS-DOS for test weenies like me to develop code for.

Have a Happy New Year!

myke

--
Mimetics Inc. Twitter

Re:Along with... by bit01 · 2003-12-30 08:38 · Score: 1

What a disingenuous pair of astroturfing M$ posts!

They are not trying to stop Linux booting. They are trying to break interoperability.

Once a large enough percentage of EFI PC's are installed M$ will bring out various "trusted computing" "patches" and gradually interoperability will stop working. Documents will become unreadable in Linux because they are encrypted, dual booting with Linux will stop working because the boot sector is checked by the "trusted" OS, file systems will become unreadable because they are encrypted (and patented) for "security", "improperly" signed documents (emails and wordprocessor) from the Linux world will have big error popups. The list goes on. And the DMCA will stop any attempts to bypass it. There strategy is clear enough, it's just difficult for a layman to understand which is why they're getting away with it. So far anyway.

And if they can break interoperability they can break Linux, because almost no Linux site will be able to interroperate with M$ sites; commercial partners, universities, you name it.

As usual, M$ will do it gradually, but there history is that they will do it. Intel is cooperating because it is they regard it as a compromise for the RIAA/MPAA "content" industries. Linux is small beer compared to M$ and the entertainment industries.

---

Astroturfers are scum.

Why not just use OpenFirmware? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 06:56 · Score: 0

Answer me that, smart guy.

But that wasn't a BIOS problem by SalesEngineer · 2003-12-30 06:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Those 'BIOS destroyer' viruses worked because of how Intel engineered a particular reference design, not due to a BIOS flaw.

The Intel reference design motherboard of the day used a software general purpose input/output (GPIO) pin to control if the flash was in read-ony or reprogramming mode. This was a departure from the normal designs of the time, which used a hardware jumper to protect the flash ROM.

At the time, everybody making boards in Taiwan did little more that copy the reference design ... so they took the design with the flash reprogramming GPIO as-is.

Somebody hacked/reverse-engineered/leaked the pin configuration from the Intel reference design. This lead to the virus. The fact the virus worked on so many systems is that the Intel chipset was very popular, hence the reference design got copied a lot.

Now it's much harder to pull this type of virus off. Different motherboard designers use different methods to protect against this. Intel's answer was to combine a hardware jumper with their own proprietary encryption system on their motherboards.

Bawk bawk bawk, the sky is falling by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 06:57 · Score: 0

Yes, soon all non-DRM motherboards will be illegal and armies of jackbooted thugs will be kicking down our doors to confiscate our 486s running Mandrake. Microsoft and Intel will rule the computer world with an iron fist, because there is no such thing as Korea, which is where I've been buying all my motherboards for the last four years or so anyway.

As everyone knows, products that no one wants are always made the only legal alternative by a corrupt Congress despite market forces. That's why it's impossible to download an mp3 without paying for it, why DivX is the only video format available and how the MPAA has destroyed TiVo.

Oh, wait.

Is this the end of widely usable Linux machines? by Animats · 2003-12-30 06:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

The basic question is this: will mainstream machines sold in retail channels still be able to run a non-Microsoft OS?

There are several ways EFI could discourage Linux use:

The boot firmware might refuse to boot anything other than a signed operating system. The XBox is that way now. Microsoft would like that, but it's a bit too blatant and might attract unwanted antitrust attention, especially in the European Union.
Dual booting probably won't work for Microsoft operating systems. That's quite likely with Palladium-type DRM. Interposing a new boot loader breaks the chain of trust between the firmware and the OS. A Microsoft OS can tell that an unauthorized component has run before it loaded, and can refuse to run. Even if it runs, it won't let you access "protected content" (movies, music, etc.). This will discourage casual Linux use. You'll have to dedicate a machine to Linux.
The boot firmware might require some technology for which Microsoft has intellectual property rights. Microsoft's new push on enforcing their rights to long-name FAT file systems indicates a step in this direction. Does EFI require a long-name FAT file system? If it does, you won't be able to build a bootable Linux image without paying Microsoft. You'd probably have to build Linux images using a Microsoft machine. So the Linux-only user won't be able to build a bootable image from source.
There may be undocumented proprietary aspects to EFI that make it hard to write to. Watch for incorporation by reference of some Microsoft standard into the EFI standard. This is already a major problem with graphics cards.

It's a subtle strategy. It's not going to be impossible to boot Linux, but it looks like it's about to become more difficult.

It will still be possible to build machines that run Linux, and there will be companies that do so and preload Linux. But they'll make up their own distribution, like the Thiz Linux you find at Wal-Mart. End user installation of Linux will decrease. Red Hat's air supply will be cut off.

Once you see the whole strategy, you realize just how clever Microsoft is being about this. It's not so blatant as to provoke screams from the industry, but it's enough to put a big dent in Linux installs.

EFI is old news by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 07:05 · Score: 0

A quick view at the Linux kernel source shows EFI support. The comments allude to it initially being written off a 1999 spec.

That aside, the problem with EFI is not that Intel is pushing it or that Microsoft thinks it's a good idea... It's that it simply redefines the nature of the problem rather than address the problem itself. It's nice if EFI can more intelligently configure hardware, but the issue is that to do so it moves the configuration issues from the software domain to the hardware/firmware domain. Instead of changing driver settings, etc. to coax hardware to work together you get a "sorry, there's an ineffable issue so I can't boot and I can't tell you precisely why -- not that you could do anything about it anyway" message.

Advantage Microsoft.. by inKubus · 2003-12-30 07:08 · Score: 1

Yeah, but then M$ will do their usual gay shit to get the common folks on the bandwagon. Offer them 100 free song downloads with the purchase of a new license. By the time they've gotten done with that, the DRM comes into play but it's too late. They aren't going to throw away their free gift--they're going to throw away their freedom.

Prediction: 2006, Microsoft/BMG merger?

--
Cool! Amazing Toys.

Eww but.. by DaLiNKz · 2003-12-30 07:12 · Score: 1

Perhaps this opens up hacking up our "EFI" based on linux? To be honest I never saw BIOS's being anything that really needed to be changed. Simple and does what it should, let the OS handle the rest (this may seem crazy to some but whichever :))

--
I've left to find myself. If you happen to see me, please, keep me there until I return.

Actually ... no by SalesEngineer · 2003-12-30 07:16 · Score: 2, Informative

RedHat & other distros already support EFI booting into IA64. The boot process isn't different from IA32 to IA64 (the spec is hardware-agnostic), and I know it's already been verified working on IA32 EFI systems.

Re:Actually ... no by Animats · 2003-12-30 08:59 · Score: 1

That's not enough. Do they make a FAT file system image with long names during the boot process? And Microsoft can still break dual-booting on their side.

Who cares about "Boot time"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 07:29 · Score: 0

Advocates say EFI would make it simpler for companies to add improvements, while also enabling PCs to boot up faster.

Is it that important that a PC boots up in 15 seconds instead of 2 minutes, while I am going to use it for hours or even days (my old P133 Linux firewall takes "ages" to start, but its uptime is currently 100 days (and that's not a record of any sort)).

Advocates whoever they may be, must be rather short on justifications for EFI...

Exactly what I need, I guess... by daybyter · 2003-12-30 07:32 · Score: 1

...maybe I could upgrade my Acer Aspire 1351LC BIOS then, so it contains the PST for the processor, that's actually in the notebook...

Question by xmple · 2003-12-30 07:40 · Score: 1

I was wondering, aren't those the same 2 companies who wants DRM controled computers?

--
Time is the only precious thing I've got left; Don't waste it

It'd better be... by incom · 2003-12-30 08:14 · Score: 1

An open standard, and royalty free.

--
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.

XP hibernation by pilkul · 2003-12-30 08:21 · Score: 2, Informative

XP has hibernation support (AFAIK most/all? versions of W2K don't) --- i.e. it can just dump the contents of the RAM to the disk and load it up again. The feature is reliable enough that usually instead of shutting down I just hibernate. Counting from the point that I press the power button, it takes only about 10-15 seconds to boot up.

Re:XP hibernation by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 08:52 · Score: 0

FYI, Win2000 does support hibernation. I cannot say whether it's slower than WinXP's hibernation as I've never seen both of them on identical hardware.
Re:XP hibernation by AnyNoMouse · 2003-12-31 07:21 · Score: 1

I run Hibernation (swap to disk not suspend to ram) on my Win2k machine I use for home theater. It only takes about 10 seconds or so to get to windows. About 3 of those seconds is spent in BIOS. It takes a little less time to go into suspend mode.

--
-Redundancy Man strikes again!

Re:Even "Sun" servers don't have that sort of thin by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 08:43 · Score: 0

You still need to connect you Sun server to a terminal just once to set the IP address

Why, don't you have DHCP?

Why this is dangerous by bizcoach · 2003-12-30 09:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well if Microsoft's involved ...it HAS to be bad, and an attempt to kill Linux.

Even if it's not directly an intentional attempt to "kill Linux" (why would the Intel engineers who designed it be interested in that!?), there can be no doubt that Microsoft is trying to do what they can to make sure that the next generation of pre-boot software for PCs will contain whatever is needed to make DRM work.

This will not stop you from running GNU/Linux or some other Free Software OS, but if a significant percentage of computer users ever get hooked on that DRM stuff, it will become hard to convince them to switch to a Free Software OS where they cannot legally access DRM'd content.

Original BIOS system was pretty weak... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 09:31 · Score: 0

...so an overhaul is long since due.

I recall the comp sci guys who got some of the original IBM PCs early one having no end of what they didn't like in the IBM PC BIOS.

Re:Not true ! (i call bullshit) by Crypto+Gnome · 2003-12-30 09:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

boots in a small fraction of the time

If by "boot" you mean "starts the GUI", then yes.

However you're completely ignoring the fact that even after giving you a UI, XP is still working its guts out trying to finish loading the other "less imperative" system drivers/services/what-have-you.

Yeah, to most "users" it "feels like" it's finished booting, but you know - some OSs have actually finished loading all services and system drivers by the time they load the UI, and the ONLY thing they're loading, are UI specific drivers/services/applications.

And they STILL beat the pants of Windows in a boot-race.

--
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.

my expectations by CAIMLAS · 2003-12-30 09:34 · Score: 1

Expect to see MS antiquing their 'old' operating systems (Windows 2000, XP, 2003 Server, etc.) once this comes out "because the hardware is incompatable" or for some other reason: this way they can essentially require anyone that wants to buy new hardware for gaming to upgrade to their new Longhorn/OS/Trusted Computing Platform, and not allow them to use an older OS version - even if the OS itself is fundamentally identical.

That, and expect every other x86 OS to lag behind MS by many months in being able to support this new hardware interface. Linux won't run on your spiff new servers? Noooo problem! Install Windows Fuckme 2005!

--
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers

Isn't this a dupe post? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 09:38 · Score: 0

I specifically remember OCG complaining about something or other in an article last month some time.

Re:Not true ! (i call bullshit) by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 09:52 · Score: 0

Well you'd be wrong as you are either basing your "opinion" on flawed information or an old version of Windows.

Clear out the default crap and you can easily make XP boot in 25 seconds obviously depending on hardware. That same machine can have RH9 or Mandrake 9 installed and will take a minute and a half to boot.
Clear out all extra services and you can make it boot in prolly 50 seconds but I'm pressed for speeding it up unless I go the Gentoo route.

At any rate, its kind of a moot point since since such machines are left on 24/7 without a problem. In some environments people run software that isn't built for an XP or .Net environment so it won't clean up as nicely, but otherwise it will stay running rather nicely for months on end. Anything longer is more or less irresponsible on both the linux and windows side of things.

Of course, we are talking about workstations and not servers where things are indeed a bit different.

So where is AMD in this? by glitch23 · 2003-12-30 09:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

I didn't read the article but I don't see anyone mentioning AMD in this other than that they are not involved in the design of this new BIOS. The question I have is why? Why wouldn't AMD want to be involved? I'm sure if 2 CPU manufacturers are involved it would help calm of the nerves of everyone on /. Maybe Intel and MS kicked AMD out of the discussion. It's hard to say. Maybe we should tell AMD to get involved?

--
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address

## If you cant tweak it, it must be inferior. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 10:14 · Score: 0

The only thing that pisses me off more than (buggy) proprietary software, is unmodifyable proprietary software (with crap built in).

Can you choose what modules are installed in it, or install new modules? Can they lock access to stuff in it (forcing us to hack it) ? It just loads the modules off the DOS drive, right? Or did they modify it to allow embedded access permissions? Auugghh!! They might prevent us from using an unauthenticated (by M.$.) EFI too.. so unless your really good with a soldering Iron (i somehow doubt they would make it a removable chip if they went this far..), EFI is SOL!

But have you seen the $ of Intels Bios Tools? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 11:39 · Score: 0

The thing with all these new "standards" groups is that 1) it costs lots of $ to join the group and get access to the software tools to roll your own bios and usually just approved companies can get involved and, 2) the cost of the tools (look at the $1000 US cost of intels bios compiler tool (http://www.shop-intel.com/shop/product.asp?pid=SI SW3118)as an example of typical corporate costs and 3) what about IP rights that usually involve liscencing costs and rollaties too , patents etc. that virutually cut ou the small develloper and inventors....if the personal computer revolution were to happen today, it couldn't because of all the leagal IP crap out there...sort of makes you wonder what direction the nanotech/biotech future will go...sure you can get life-extention, just pay these 10,000 IP holders their 5% cut (each) and we can begin.....

ya right by blaksaga · 2003-12-30 11:54 · Score: 0

[quote] Come on get real. The dmca will never be used to cancel free speech..... [/quote] Ya, kind of like how the FCC _was_ not intended to limit free speech...we all see how that has turned out. The government will do what is best for the government. A government for the people is long gone.

Windex Alternative by OldManAndTheC++ · 2003-12-30 12:01 · Score: 1

As a handy home tip, you can improve on this idea with items found around the house:

Take some Wine and open it up

Let it develop for a while and go bad

After a while it will be sour and smell awful. Now you can do Windows! And if you do it right, they will be transparent.

--
Soylent Green is peoplicious!

Given the bias on Slashdot by DroversDog · 2003-12-30 13:54 · Score: 0

then wouldn't we all be biosed?

Stop being an idiot. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-12-30 15:22 · Score: 0

EFI != Trusted Computing.

You can do DRM with a standard BIOS (current IBM thinkpads), and you can do EFI without DRM (EFI machines currently shipping).

Possible correlation? by ScottCanto · 2003-12-30 16:51 · Score: 1

Does this have anything to do with MS's licensing of the FAT filesystem?

Actually... by Trolling4Dollars · 2003-12-30 17:01 · Score: 1

...I don't really think this will affect Linux much at all considering how little Linux actually makes use of the BIOS. In my recent attempts to build a nice desktop system based on RedHat 9 for my mom for Christmas, I kept running into plenty of evidence that Linux pretty much ignores a lot of what BIOS is supposed to do for an OS. The P II 266, I was trying to get going for my mom was having a little performance issue, so I had to delve into the black art of BIOS tuning and found that after a while, I wound up turning off a lot of the "optimization" in the BIOS that Windows depends on. After said tuning and custom compiling kernel 2.4.22 with the preemptable kernel patch, the P II was humming along in step with my P 4 runningn Windows XP. So... I wouldn't be surprised if you see Linux on these new BIOS-less platforms.

--
Un-news

Conspicuous omission of TC by riceboy50 · 2003-12-30 18:29 · Score: 1

This is obviously going to be the vehicle with which the Trusted Computing Group (TCG) will impose its trusted computing standard onto the PC market. I just think it's very suspicious that this is not even mentioned in this article. As major players in the TCG, Microsoft and Intel will be quietly pushing these standards into PCs because of their contraversial nature. For more info check out Ross Anderson's trusted computing FAQ

--
~ I am logged on, therefore I am.

ACPI by cRueLio · 2003-12-30 21:08 · Score: 1

Does anyone remember when Intel introduced ACPI? Only MS was ready, and Linux still doesn't have fully-working ACPI support. While ACPI is much better than APM technically speaking, all it really did was set Linux back. I suspect that while this new BIOS will be a technological improvement, it will again set Linux back. These "Wintel" pacts never really helped anyone but Microsoft...

--
Investing forum

BIOS-savior by bobkoure · 2003-12-31 03:49 · Score: 1

There's a gizmo you can buy that plugs into your BIOS-flash-ram socket.
It has a flash ram in it and a socket for another flash-ram on top - and a switch that lets you determine which one is active.
A very useful thing if you do a lot of BIOS-updating (or have an Asus A7N8X rev-1 that had a tendency to corrupt BIOS when doing a simple save of BIOS params - like changing boot-device order)
About $20 as I remember...

He's Right! Shouldn't this be listed SOMEWHERE? by chemicallyreliant · 2003-12-31 04:19 · Score: 1

I just went out back to an old pentium (original, ie p1) that had (yes had, heh) a stuffed bios after a bad upgrade and the bastard is right. It took the right flash utility (some manufacturers are expecting a particular hash code for incoming files, which is only useful if both boards are same make and model) but after a bit of knob twisting i got it to boot again off this 'lifeboat' method.

This should be written in a help book somewhere under "so, you've stuffed your bios have you?"

DEL key and Dell Computer by bstil · 2004-01-05 03:26 · Score: 1

The deal with current BIOSes is that you hold down DEL and up comes a nice, friendly, menu where you can configure anything in the BIOS you want.

Does anyone know if Dell Computer Inc. came up with hitting the DELete key? Get it, 'Dell' and 'DEL'?

Is this just a coincidence, or clever marketing? I think other manufacturers use keys like F8, etc.

Slashdot Mirror

Writing an End to the Bio of BIOS?

511 comments