Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel To Release Next-Gen BIOS Code Under CPL

Posted by timothy on from the old-texas-town-of-el-paso dept.

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."

6 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. Microsoft Support? by 3)+profit!!! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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...

  2. OpenBoot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    What, dare I ask, is wrong with OpenBoot? It's an open standard; it's been around for a long time; and it's used in at least two manufacturers' systems that I can think of. I've also heard reports that some (obscure, probably now defunct) Intel-based PC manufacturers used it in their systems.

    Seems to me like a bad case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome.

  3. Re:Not really by finkployd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    But no implementation of DRM can be considered a "good secure system". The whole concept is to take PKI and try to keep the private key away from the owner so he/she cannot use it for anything except what the content owner wants you to use it for. This is why MS is trying to stick private keys in hardware. This is why the iTMS DRM removal tool needs to be able to get your key out of either the iTunes software or your iPod.

    Trying to do DRM in something completely open source will NEVER work. DRM is security by obscurity, plain and simple.

    Finkployd

  4. More Secure? by niktesla · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It is stored in firmware, so it is more secure from viruses and other types of attack than past BIOSes
    [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...
  5. Re:Get our minds right first and last. by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DRM is an attempt to remove my control of my private property and place it into the hands of someone who doesn't own it. Period.

    I oppose DRM because I believe in the right to private property (namely my computer). Nothing to do with copyright violation.

  6. Re:Not really by prockcore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And that's what most people do with their PC. Drive it. Not muck around under the hood and tweak the fuel injectors, or adjust the slope of the ABS initiation.

    Ironically, Congress is forcing auto makers to reveal their "precious precious IP" because your average mechanic can't read the chips in your car. Basically auto makers were trying to get you to take your car into the dealer to get an oil change. Congress stepped up and said "that's unfair trade practice".