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?
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?
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
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.
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
That's EXACTLY what I was thinking when I read about this project several years ago. OpenBoot is Free/free and proven. Not only that but it's hard to imagine a more flexible system since it includes a Turing Complete programming language at its heart =) After you've used OpenBoot the PC BIOS seems so limiting and mundane.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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.
;-))
Not to mention that it's much cooler. You've got to love how easy it is to tell a Solaris machine to boot from ANYTHING without even an OS on the system! Boot from network? Never have to touch the machine. Boot from USB? A two line command? CDROM? Same! Boot from next years wizzigig? Done.
It's also great for saving a system. Mislink the superblock? Write a Fortran program to fix it! Need a quick calcuation done while writing your program? Write a bit of Fortran to calculate it for you! Face it, OpenFirmware is simply cooler than anything on the Intel platform, present or future.
(BTW, keep an eye out for CmdrTaco. He always shows up with his OpenBoot troll ten hours after the story has been posted. Come on Taco! You've got to get moving!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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
Ok. So then, what is the big difference between the CPL and the BSD license?
"BSD is about people pissing each other.." (Moid Vallat)
> DRM does not prevent data sharing. ..or using something you have legally purchased without paying lots of extra money to the local monopolist. ..or forwarding DRMed spam to the senders ISPs. ..or watching that cool DVD your mum bought you while on holiday in the UK... ..or sending a copy of a fraudulent copy of your *own* media to the police...
> It prevents you from sharing data which you don't have the authority to share.
Ok, hardly essential functions of society,
But still very annoying.
- MugginsM
Uh, it's an open standard, like TCP/IP or HTTP. Some implementations are open source, some are not. I don't see any conspiracy here.
This space unintentionally left unblank.
Heh, most Linux people (including me) always argue that's one of the benefits of open source, so people can see the bugs and fix it, and then someone complains when Intel might be using it for that reason :)
Let us not be too hasty to chastise intel for being smart...
---
Never criticize religion on Slashdot. You will be modded down for "Troll" no matter how factual it is.
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
Having an open-source bios wont prevent DRM any more then having an open-source OS will prevent file permission restrictions.
With an Open Source OS, I can hack away those file permissions while retaining full compatiblity with the orginal. Nothing difficult about it. The only reason it hasn't been done, is because file permissions are beneficial to the owner of the system.
If there's DRM in the BIOS that isn't beneficial to the owner, he'll get rid of it if he can. He might not be able to do it himself, but someone else will. If it's possible, of course. It depends on the implementation.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
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.
" 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
If I understand the license correctly, there is a key difference that you're missing:
In the first passage you cite, it need only be made available under the CPL if released in source code form. So, you could distribute binaries of the code under any license you want. The satement that the new license "complies with the terms and conditions of this Agreement" isn't the same as saying you have to release it under the same license. It just means you can't violate any of the conditions of that license (say, about warantees or whatever).