Slashdot Mirror
Intel To Release Next-Gen BIOS Code Under CPL
An anonymous reader writes "Intel said today that it plans to release the 'Foundation code' of its next-generation firmware technology -- a successor to the PC BIOS -- under the Common Public License (CPL), an open source license, later this year. More than 20 years old, the BIOS (Basic Input-Output System) is the oldest software technology in PC platforms. Intel says its firmware Foundation code, a result of a project codenamed Tiano, 'provides that the successor to the BIOS will be based on up-to-date software technology.' The Foundation code is designed to be extended with new features and services, such as improved platform manageability, serviceability, and administrative interfaces which are too complex to implement in the old BIOS environment, according to Intel."
Will this end the fear of DRM'd BIOS? With the source available then any additions added to the bios can be reversed. I wonder if Intel is countering something in regards to statements made by Microsoft and Sun saying that hardware will be free?
Seems the CPL is popular these days. Even Microsoft uses it for their opensource projects (WiX and WTL). Not to mention IBM who is the CPL author.
This technology is more commonly known as Digital Rights Management.
Intel has been slowly losing credibility in my (and possibly others) eyes for some time now. Processor ID's sucked. However, they 'did the right thing' and got rid of them. Their implimentation of 64-bit computing sucked (or was ahead of its time) but they 'did the right thing' and swiped AMD's :). I used to be a Intel fanatic (yes, I owned several bunny people) and dismissed AMD's processors because of thier floating point performance. AMD wised up and finally gave chase to Intel on all performance matters to the point where I'm now running a AMD processor. I've always been concerened that Microsoft and Intel are a little too friendly, especially in regards to 64-bit windows versions and Microsoft/Intel's chip/release timing.
Anyway, the BIG concern for me on the horizon is the upcoming DRM-from-the-bios-to-the-speaker-cone mentality that some unnamed people are trying to push. If Intel wants to score major bonus points in my book, opening up the bios (or whatever they feel like calling it) could definately do it.
If I know that I can always depend on my computer to do what I tell it to and not what Intel/Microsoft/Belken tell it to do, I will go that route.
Also, to Intel... I'm buying a new server next month. I had decided on AMD. I'm now considering Intel as an option. Now everyone in the marketing department go tell the engineering department to go impliment this!
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
While the source may be available, that won't mean it can't contain DRM. After all, any good secure system should be secure wether or not the source is visible or not.
:P
Think about it, the fact that you can see the source code to Linux doesn't mean that a regular user has any greater ability to gain root. That's exactly how these new DRM systems work, by taking a way a user's right to be root on their own machine.
Flash your own Tiano BIOS, and on DRM certified mobo's it simply won't run unless its signed by Microsoft or someone.
So this wont help with DRM, but it's still a good thing
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Processor ID's sucked
I never had a problem with Intel's processor ID. Every networked computer already has a unique MAC address. What is the difference?
"Microsoft is continuing its commitment to open industry standards by adding EFI boot support to all versions of the Longhorn generation of Windows products," said Tony Pierce, Technical Evangelist of Microsoft's Windows Hardware Innovation Group. "Participation in the collaborative community effort around the Foundation code that Intel is announcing today will help systems manufacturers and firmware companies deliver new and exciting platform innovations to their customers."
I wonder if this is going to be like Microsoft's "support" for Java...
... and it's exactly what I thought too, at least a variation of it, and they opened it so anyone could implement as much of it as they wanted to. So I'll call it a cousin of DRM.
Having an open-source bios wont prevent DRM any more then having an open-source OS will prevent file permission restrictions. The source to Linux wont do you any good without the root password, and the source to the BIOS won't do you any good without a signing certificate on a DRM-enabled motherboard.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
the LinuxBios project? I would think little, if at all, since the core goals of the LinuxBios project are so specific (providing instant control of a cluster node), but maybe I am wrong? Perhaps some innovations can flow both ways.
Either way, kudos to Intel.
bash: rtfm: command not found
Seems to me like a bad case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome.
wow, this is actually pretty cool. Imagine being able to download a bios patch off the 'net that would let you boot the machine directly into Linux, or hell... put a webserver right into the bios chip.
In the future I can see the ultimate "geek" motherboard having a memory-stick or CF card slot for the bios, rather then using chips that aren't often used by consumers. You'd be able to walk down to best buy or Wal-Mart and buy a new bios chip to play around with.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
... sounds exactly like hype that is bound to be turned into something you do not want, in actuality.
Like the original intent of cookies and the actuality of spyware use...
it almost seems, to ensure you can write open source software and still make money is to make absolutely certain that your open source software is written in such a way it isn't of any use to anyone unless they buy your expensive hardware to operate with it...
...but given the glowing examples of how you will be able to boot directly to things like a web browser, it will quickly become a security nightmare and another petty obsession for power user types. Doesn't mean it's bad though.
More information is in a similar article over at News.com.
They mention that proprietary BIOS's is one of the key obstacles to implementing proper power management (ie hibernation) under Linux.
- Neil Wehneman
My legal education, in nifty podcast format
Ron on the LinuxBIOS list put this best earlier today:
You are not going to get the hardware startup code in Tiano. You're going to get the code that runs on top of the hardware startup code, and gives you a DOS-like startup system.
Don't expect to suddenly see northbridge code on the intel web site. Part of the goal of Tiano/EFI is to make the release of such information unneeded. There is a silver lining. Supposedly, the interfaces from the hidden hardware code to Tiano will be public. This means you can conceivably chuck Tiano and put your own thing in its place, which could be
This is how Linux NetWorx built the Alpha LinuxBIOS:
- hidden hardware
code (Alpha SROM) [ not changed, left in place]
- LinuxBIOS [with Alpha support, minus memory setup code]
- Linux
Worked fine, should work for Tiano platforms. In other words, the binary support code for Tiano could solve some problems for us:
- if we don't get the specs for the Intel chips (likely), then we can just leave the "hidden hardware code" in place, and flash over Tiano,
replacing Tiano with LinuxBIOS. I believe Linux Labs did something like this for their ClearWater port 2 years or so ago.
- Makes porting to other Intel mobos easier.
Why the CPL, not the GPL?
So that 3rd party vendors can add incompatibilities -- err, value --
and charge you for it.
Put another way, Tiano could be a linuxbios payload. I don't have much
use for a Tiano/EFI payload, however. Tiano/EFI is very complex and if
I'm going to put a complex thing like that into flash I'd much rather
it be linux. I don't want something that's most of the work of an OS
but not much of the capability, which pretty much describes Tiano/EFI.
I'm intrigued that they are open sourcing it. I had for years only
heard that it would be available under a type of NDA. I think LinuxBIOS
is part of the push for open sourcing this type of software. But I
doubt you're going to see Phoenix et. al. open source their
'value-added' Tiano, which means a source fork is built into the model.
That's trouble for us as customers -- we already suffer daily with all
these BIOS extensions and undocumented, hidden gotchas. We already say
this once: there was supposed to be a standard "hand off" on IA64 for
startup. I found out that this "standard" handoff was modified by
several vendors: it was no longer standard.
Let's hope the "hidden
hardware code" to Tiano interface remains standard. Also, if this code
is anything like the EFI code, it won't build under Linux, only builds
under Windows. It won't "just work" for us.
All that said, I think Intel is doing a good thing by open sourcing the Tiano system, and I congratulate them on doing so.
Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
Intel better not release BIOS under a CPL because it is obvious that SCO owns this. Look out Intel, you are now in the viewfinder of SCO.
"administrative interfaces which are too complex to implement in the old BIOS environment, according to Intel."
Riiiiiiiiiiight!
Are there any REAL Assembler programmers left who are willing to work for Intel??? That's the REAL question!
One more advantage of RISC systems: OpenFirmware is a real standard, while Intel just wants us to believe it has an 'open architecture standard' and an 'SIG' instead of conforming to an already existing, real open standard.
One more instance of the proprietary lock-in game.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Data sharing is literally essential - computers are only marginally useful if their only info exchange is via keyboard/mouse/monitor. DRM is a tech implementation of the human activity of trust. Proprietary DRM schemes, like M$ Passport, or any other vertical integration, are bad trust models. They fetishize others of the same breeding, trusting identical platforms more than different ones. That kind of model is like feeding cattle the remains of their unsold brethren, a monoculture that amplifies platform weaknesses like mad cow, which incubate in a species and even threaten others. The diversity of open trust standards, like PGP webs of trust, or public SSL CAs, combined with open, mutual audits, keep the ecosystem healthy. Before we build a rickety infrastructure based on flawed models and self-defeating principles, we must get to the right way to manage these systems - then automate them. An open source BIOS, which interoperates with the rest of the Internet ecosystem, at least preserves the options to do that, without passing the point of no return on the wrong path.
--
make install -not war
'provides that the successor to the BIOS will be based on up-to-date software technology.'
If it ain't broke... well then at least say it's not modern.
... this will be a long remembered day in the history of the personal computers.
WURD!!
I remember in the late 80's seeing a bound, printed version of the IBM XT BIOS source code (ASM of course). It belonged to a friend and probably dated from the early 80's. IIRC, he sent IBM a check for $50 and they sent it to him.
Not Open Source, but invaluable when we were developing device drivers, TSRs, and other low-level software.
OpenFirmware is the most amazingly awsome BIOS ever. Mostly because it's written in Forth which is one of the most amazingly awsome languages ever. I learned Forth specifically so I could hack on my PowerMac 7500's OpenFirmware. It's too bad Apple's old OF implementations were a bit buggy, but the newer PowerMacs' OF is super.
For those who aren't familiar with Forth: Forth is a very powerful and easy to learn language. It's hardware requirements are very light and it is completely portable. Except for the most fundamental procedures, Forth is written in Forth and is completely modifiable and extensable. Forth programs are written as extensions of Forth itself. Forth is an interpreted language, and can be used from a Forth shell, much like BASIC. However, it is almost as fast as C, and equally powerful. Forth is an ideal language for embedded computer systems.
For those of you that aren't familiar with OpenFirmware: OF is written in Forth and is very powerful because it can be manipulated from the Forth shell. This makes it very straightforward for an intelligent user to modify his BIOS as he sees fit, write BIOS scripts, modify settings, etc. The OF Forth shell gives you all the power of a normal PC BIOS and GRUB and then some. It even has a rudimentary edlin like text editor. Anyway if you own a Mac, look up some info on OF and play around with it a bit, it's pretty freakin cool.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
Maybe its just me, but don't you think that this is just a way of intel trying to get free and fast bugfixes and improvement for their bios?
They also did it for the AT - and I've got both :-)
:-)
Not much use these days - but from a historical perspective of some curio value.
Still doesn't exmplain why new PC's BIOS POST takes so damn long
[sarcasm] Yeah, there were real virus problems w/ BIOS back when it was non-flashable. Those pesky viruses would pop my BIOS chip out and install a new one before I knew it.[/sarcasm]
Extra or additional drivers and code functions can be stored on the hard drive and accessed there.
Seems like this would increase the vulnerability of the BIOS.
Other than this problem and maybe not being able to control some of the OEM preboot (an odd word when you think of it) "features" (DRM, etc.), this doesn't sound too bad of a plan. Sounds like we're on the way to having the OS run off a FLASH disk or some type of firmware. It'd be ironic if, because of advanced DRM technology, we have to go back to the oldest mod trick - yank out the old chip and solder in the new, as was once done to upgrade BIOS.
I've discovered a remarkable proof, but this margin is too small to contain it...
*wow*
I'm pretty sure that almost immediately after Intel released that "feature", the next Linux kernel was patched to disable it on boot.
On the one occasion I've left it on in my BIOS ( a number of years ago now), in the Linux kernel boot log was a statement that the PID was being disabled.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
If memory serves correct, the ASM source for the BIOS was published as part of the original PC/XT Technical Reference Manual.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Embrace, Extend, Elimate.
"BSD is about people pissing each other.." (Moid Vallat)
Should be:
"But of course, copyright doesn't allow this anyways, as I spent the last paragraph stating, because that would misunderstand copyright to be a protection of some sort of inherent 'right' in the act of creation rather than a protection of progress through balanced public and private rights."
Sorry!
eliminiminate!
Unless you are a motherboard maker you won't be using this source dump. All of the hardware level details will remain hidden away in vendor's source trees so an end user will never be able to link a complete copy.
It might prove useful now and again to conpare documented behavior to actual, but that is about the extent of it.
Democrat delenda est
I remember that i thought it was cool when they added mouse support and CD-ROM booting in the BIOS. What cool stuff are they going to add now?
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
"settings are no longer stored in the CMOS (complementary metal-oxide semiconductor) map. Instead, new settings are stored on the firmware chip. Extra or additional drivers and code functions can be stored on the hard drive and accessed there"
How about using the firmware to make phony devices? About a week after MS launches the latest DRM based firmware its habbits and procedures *will* be cracked. One could then mimick that behaviour to circumvent authentication and possibly crack the system.
One could get at the EFI by "booting" off a USB etc device and then passing it off to the MBR. That would circumvent the DMCA(sp?)? Hope they realize that before it gets launched!
Sig
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
OpenFirmware. Seriously, its be tested tride and true.
Would you buy a car if you're not allowed to reverse engineer the ECU to reset the Service Due light after changing the oil yourself? Oh, and if you do that anyway, you'll be charged under the DMCA and sent to PITA prison.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
How does this affect the Amd 64 bit cpu's...I understand that they are a better design than intels future 64 bit machines?? and how does this affect these new bioses?? shouldn't we be demanding an open source bios standard (non-drm)?
Not open source in what sense? By the capitalsation, I assume that you're equating "Open Source" to be more than just "access to the source code", but that's adding more to the definition than is present in the words themselves.
You had the source of the program; I'd say it was open source. No, it wasn't GPL licensed (or BSD, or whatever), but it certainly wasn't "closed" either.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
it'll get turned off. The tech support costs for automatically rejecting untrusted content will just be too high. Try getting grandma to use public/private key pairs some time. Set her up with the system, and when it doesn't work, tell her to call Microsoft. Do that to 10 million grandma's and watch the stock prices fall.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
> I remember in the late 80's seeing a bound, printed version of the IBM XT BIOS source code (ASM of course). It belonged to a friend and probably dated from the early 80's. IIRC, he sent IBM a check for $50 and they sent it to him.
I still have a copy of the PC, PC/XT and PC/AT technical reference manuals all with bios source. And with schematics of the motherboard and sample add on boards.
Someone told me IBM had to release this information due to anti-trust problems they had had. Another theory is they released it to make building cards for the PC easier.
In those days they gave their customers the source to their mainframe software at the time. But it was not open source as we know it. They thought at the time that hardware was the profit centre and software was not that important.
That is correct. But this manual was not part of the standard PC shipment, you had to order it as an extra documentation item.
(interestingly, a BASIC reference manual was usually included with PC systems those days!)
If every person needs a scanning tunneling microscope just to do what they want with their computers, then Microsoft et. al. have already won.
Technically, there is no need for BIOS today. Some people experiment with using stripped ROMmed linux kernel as a boot loader. It's already pretty configurable, supports wide sortiment of hardware devices and operates on many cpu platforms. Why to reinvent an edged wheel just for x86-64?
There you are, staring at me again.
Are you new here?
The whole point of CPL is to create confusion with GPL. (just look at the NAME of the licence)
It is similarly viral (all your derived code if released in source form must be in CPL) and shuts the door on any potential branch to another OSS license, including the GPL.
It is simply a MS tactic to steal resource and potential code amount that goes to the GPL.
So, if you're not anti-GPL, don't use the CPL.
" The Foundation code is designed to be extended with new features and services, such as improved platform manageability, serviceability, and administrative interfaces which are too complex to implement in the old BIOS environment, according to Intel."
Did you notice the part about 'administrative interfaces'? This means your PC will have a remote control interface built right into the BIOS. Now anything that's turned on and connected to the network will be remotely exploitable. Even your Linux box, or your toaster will be worm fodder.
-- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
And THAT, my friends, is how Phoenix got started. They simply grabbed a IBM PC 5150 technical reference manual, gave it to one group of programmers, who determined the hooks in the BIOS, and gave a list of those hooks to another group of programmers, who developed a BIOS around them.
C'mon guys, not everything that Intel does these days is DRM ! (i don't say that they don't do some DRM, though... :( )
:)
if you ever have had to managed a bunch of servers &/ more-than-a-few workstations, you'd greatly appreciate such a feature of remote CMOS-setup & friends, wouldn't you ?
- and if someone will put any DRM in, it will be visible to all (CPL, remember ?) - and removed !
The latest 3D games FOR LINUX, not the latest for Windows? You might get away with an i865G, which is handled by OPEN SOURCE, WITH INTEL CONTRIBUTIONS i810 graphics drivers.
IIRC, on an i845 laptop I had use of, performance on BZFlag was pretty good, but nothing compared to a modern card. The only thing you're going to have trouble with is the UT series, especially 2004 - just drop the resolution to 640x480...
It wasn't open source.
If you changed one line and burned a chip and swapped it for the chip in your PC, you'd be violating the copyright on the source (except for any allowances for fair use).
If you go down to the bookstore and buy a book it comes with the source code built-in. However, that does not mean that the book is "open" in any sense - you can't make your own derivative work except under the guidelines of fair use.
Open source is about granting access to USE the source - not just see it. And access beyond just fair use. It doesn't have to mean GPL - BSD is also fine. Even public domain is fine as well. But simply showing the source doesn't make something open source.
By your definition Win2K is open source since you can download much of the source code from the appropriate forums. And MS even lets you view the whole thing if you sign an NDA...
There are lots of different methods to do "drm", but PKI based systems do not need to keep the private key on the host system.
We're talking about a system for signing code, i.e. your computers OS won't give access to protected content to programs that haven't been signed by an authorized party. The signing key (in other words, the private key) never needs to leave the offices of Microsoft, the RIAA or whoever does the code signing. The user only needs to keep a copy of the verification key (the public key).
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
you won't be able to easily share music you create
I can see the songwriters' guild agreeing with this restriction, for several reasons.
or a free software program you write to the world unless you get certified by (who? BSA?) whoever for huge amounts of cash to become a "trusted" provider.
Given experience with Windows XP signed audio drivers and Xbox software, the "who" would probably be the lot-check department of the publisher of a proprietary operating system.
Or convince your users, if they have an option, to turn off the security setting that Microsoft, anti-virus companies, mainstream press and all others say is wrong to do, will result in worms and viruses, and will no longer be supported by the OEM.
So what happens to makers and users of digital image input devices such as cameras and scanners?
I have it on very good authority that EFI gets at LEAST 15 miles more to the gallon than your puny little Civic.
SEE????
* clueless mods: please look up "EFI" within the context of the article. thanks.
+++ATH0
They should leave good enough alone. Working on this, would be like reworking the FTP standard to bring it "up to date". Opening a can of worms.
Have you read my journal today?
The project represents more than 200 person years of development by Intel's China Software Center in Shanghai, and Intel software labs in Oregon and Washington, Intel says.
Thank GOD they didn't say "man years", since clearly they are different units.
They did have some other errors, such as the next paragraph:
"Because pre-boot firmware is a vital ingredient in all modern platforms, silicon vendors and system manufacturers require stability in the Foundation code to protect their investment in innovation," noted Will Swope, vice president and general manager of Intel's Software and Solutions Group. "They expect unfettered access and collaborative control of changes so that interoperability can be maintained."
should read:
"Because pre-boot firmware is a vital ingredient in all modern platforms, silicon vendors and system personufacturers require stability in the Foundation code to protect their investment in innovation," noted Will Swope, vice president and general personager of Intel's Software and Solutions Group. "They expect unfettered access and collaborative control of changes so that interoperability can be persointained."
Slashdot can suck deez nutz.
Or I should say, the slashdot community can suck deez nutz.
The content from hardware devices physically attached to the PC would be "trusted" for your personal use, but similar content downloaded online would not.
And Grandma wouldn't be able to send your aunt pictures.
Moreover, restrictions on images could be looser since media cartels and BSA are not concerned about those as much.
What is video other than a sequence of still images presented at regular intervals, synchronized to voice mail? And if the operating system does manage to block transmitting video works created by an author using home equipment, it would mean that Grandma wouldn't be able to send home movies to other family members.