Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UEFI Formed to Replace BIOS

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the well-i'll-believe-it-when-i-see-code dept.

anonymous cow-herd writes "Businesswire reports that several leading technology companies including Intel, AMD, Microsoft, IBM, Dell and HP and others have formed the Unified EFI Forum. The non-profit corporation will assume responsibility for the development and promotion of the EFI specification, a pre-boot interface originally developed by Intel that is intended to replace the aging PC BIOS."

43 of 422 comments (clear)

  1. Cue CmdrTaco's OpenBoot Troll by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've said before, and I'll say it again: Why not OpenFirmware/OpenBoot?

    Let's go through the list and see what EFI has compared to OpenFirmware, shall we?

    1. EFI has a built-in bootloader. (Check)
    2. EFI has built-in device drivers. (Check)
    3. EFI has a shell environment. (Check, except that OpenFirmware isn't so laughable.)
    4. EFI is cross platform. (Check)
    5. EFI maintain *some* of the old PC BIOS calls. (No Support in OpenFirmware. Boo hoo.)
    6. EFI adds trusted computing. (No Support in OpenFirmware. OF believes in computers being controlled by their owners.)

    So why EFI and not OpenFirmware? Could it be a Not Invented Here Syndrome, or something more sinister? Is this the beginning of Trusted Computing for all? How do they expect to get customers to purchase an EFI system when a PC BIOS one is still well supported? Will they try to make an exclusive contract with Dell and invite the wrath of the justice department?

    Only time will tell.

    --
    Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    1. Re:Cue CmdrTaco's OpenBoot Troll by ckaminski · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Have to admit that #2 is the prime reason I want new bootware. Dammit, the whole software IDE raid thing has me pissed. Why do I need drivers (except for software management) for RAID that pretends to be ATAPI? Either implement it as a real ATAPI translation layer, so I don't need drivers, or don't call it "IDE" raid. jeebus.

      If USB could figure out driverless storage, I'm sure the rest of the industry can. How many different ways of defining storage can there be?

      Networking too. I'm sick of device drivers. Sick I tell you! And not just because I run Linux. I've got an IBM T41 laptop, and trying to figure out which of 18 Windows ethernet/wifi configurations the thing came configured with is pissing me off.

    2. Re:Cue CmdrTaco's OpenBoot Troll by Total_Wimp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ... or why not have the fine folks who support OpenFirmware join the EFI group and work with them to make a standard that meets everyone's needs? I sure hope they don't have a "Not Invented Here" mentality that will stop them from working to create a real industry standard with a real industry group.

      Leaders of OF should send EFI a letter. The worst they can say is "you're not welcome." But then everything will be right out in the open, won't it?

      TW

    3. Re:Cue CmdrTaco's OpenBoot Troll by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is this the beginning of Trusted Computing for all? How do they expect to get customers to purchase an EFI system when a PC BIOS one is still well supported?

      1) New Microsoft products will not boot on machines not installed with a DRM'd loader.

      2) The "regular" Internet will not work with those people that aren't using trusted computing (i.e. online banking, music stores, etc).

      3) People are buying new computers instead of cleaning off spyware because it's more cost effective.

      4) Microsoft is now creating "anti-spyware" software (*cough* the recent Claria reports *cough*) so that people may end up going down the road listed in #3.

    4. Re:Cue CmdrTaco's OpenBoot Troll by Enigma_Man · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your average customer hasn't ever even HEARD of a BIOS, so they don't know WTF it is. They just hear "three point too giga flops prints faster, faster internet, faster faster" from the sales droids. They don't care if it's Intel, AMD, Dell, Gateway, or a steaming pile of poo in a box, as long as they hear big numbers at the shop where they buy it. They don't know, don't care. Then when 90% of all "computer-users" have bought these trusted-computing Longhorn-lockdowns, there won't be any choices, even if everybody does realize "hey, I can't watch these pirated movies anymore" they'll be complacent sheep, because that's what they always do: look at viruses, spyware, etc. People don't know enough to be able to care.

      -Jesse

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    5. Re:Cue CmdrTaco's OpenBoot Troll by oxygene2k2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      well, OF exists for 1994 - so intel should have joined the OF effort (IEEE standard, even)

      they didn't.. and defined a standard 10 times larger than OF, doing approximately the same

      if we (the OF people) join them, the best that could happen is a combined standard 11 times larger than OF - not wise.

    6. Re:Cue CmdrTaco's OpenBoot Troll by LurkerXXX · · Score: 3, Insightful
      So instead you will keep from joining their group the only folks who would be opposed to trusted computing?

      They didn't join your group. Get over it. Staying pure in your group might make you feel good, but it's the group made of major manufacturers who will decide what's actually produced and out there for consumers to use. Not trying to join up with them and make the voice of reason present within that grou might be much much more unwise.

    7. Re:Cue CmdrTaco's OpenBoot Troll by oxygene2k2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      OpenFirmware is SUNs brainchild, IBM (and Apple) adopted it in the powerpc development process

    8. Re:Cue CmdrTaco's OpenBoot Troll by Sique · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the other hand, when everything actually running on the Trusted Plattform is going to cost money, and there is no free (as in beer) contend available (because of the licensing costs and requirements to get a Trusted Platform certificate), how interesting will it be to everyone? How often will they upgrade?
      How many people have an Xbox or PS2 or GameCube or , and don't want an additional all purpose computer because the system they own completely satisfieds their needs?
      It all boils down to the question: If we cut down on the number of providers (and DRM just cuts down the number of entities which offer something for you, being it legal or not), how long does it take until the system is no longer able to cope with demand (not necessarily in numbers, but in features, possibilities, additions)?
      The IBM compatible PC was successful not necessarily because of the offerings of IBM and Microsoft, but because of the ease to create derivates and additional tools. PkZip and SideStep, Norton Utilities and all the hundreds of thousands little share- and freeware helper made it the versatile platform it is today. Introducing the trusted platform just cuts the roots to this flowering. How long will it grow if the soil gets thinner?
      I give the Trusted Platform about 10 years, then something will grow up in parallel and replace the Trusted Platform step by step. It will be a sheer necessity, because the platform is moving too slow for the demand, laws and industry standards be damned.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    9. Re:Cue CmdrTaco's OpenBoot Troll by Mac+Degger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Not Invented Here"-mentality?

      Jesus...are you guys all this naive? Look at the first-poster's post and see the last item. The reason the mayor manufacturors want EFI over anything else is of course Trusted Computing. Anyone who thinks otherwise (especially considering OF has 11 years of getting the bugs out) is hopelessly naive.

      And it's sad, not just because with DRM/TC that 'great firewall of China' can be implemented anywhere quite trivially and in a targetted way, or just because the little group with it's (admittedly better) OF doesn't have jack shit influence-wise, or just because if it did join EFI (even if EFI let it) it would be drowned out, but most of all because the first couple of posts at /. come out with some bogus 'well, maybe it's because of a NIH-mentality!'. Yeah; right.

      I'm sorry this post is so vitriolic, but the fact is that here it is: DRM made for mass consumption. Only the geeks will know not to buy it, but it won't matter, because soon you won't be able to buy anything without a TC-EFI 'bios'. Or at least something up-to-date. For proof, just try and get a decent PCI(non-e) graphics card, and just look at what's happening to AGP.
      And for the people who say 'it'll be hacked'....yeah, it will, but it won't do us much good; look at all the guys with chipped xbox's who don't do it for the pirated games, but for the otherwise never playable Japanese imports. Yeah, they can crack it, but they can't play 'Live'.

      So I'm a bit bitter about this: if we can't get enough people to talk with their wallets, we will soon truly have two internets: one for the masses, all EFI'd and bright-shiny-new, and one for the geeks who run ten year old hardware, because that's the last pieces which rolled off without EFI.

      And for those who hope for capitalism and market forces to right this: forget it. PC-electronics is only feasable due to high mass-market penentration: geeks alone are too small a market for manufacturors to cost-effectively make EFI-less products when that's the standard. And even if they do manage (at largely inflated prices, too high for the average geek), you won't be able to use it on the EFI'd internet2.0.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    10. Re:Cue CmdrTaco's OpenBoot Troll by Total_Wimp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      First off, the reason I used the term "Not Invented Here" was because that was the term the original post used. I'm not bashing Open Firmware.

      Second off, 'Trusted Computing' can, and likely, will coexist with I-have-control-of-my-own-box computing. The question is, how will that coexistance work?

      1. Is it gonna work by the Linux community needing to buy seperate motherboards with seperate firmware and seperate CPUs.

      2. Is it gonna work by the Linux community hacking the firmware in ways that aren't technically legal (think Xbox) so the business community won't have anything to do with it.

      3. Or is it gonna work by having firmware where 'Trusted Computing' can be turned off and on (or forced off and on) depending on the OS you choose to run?

      If the F/OSS doesn't work with major industry groups, you're going to get #1 or #2 and F/OSS operating systems will be marginalized or worse. If they work with the industry groups you'll at least get a shot at #3.

      There is a good second reason though. If F/OSS wants to be part of the computing community then they're going to have to come out of their F/OSS burrows occasionally and join industry groups to create industry standards. Yes, it's hard. Yes, lots of these groups don't work. Yes, some of these companies are evil, or mean, or monopolistic. So what?

      There's a term for people who don't join in the decision making process and then complain about it afterwords when the decisions go against them. Actually there are several terms, but the one I want to use today is "childish". It's time for F/OSS to grow up and actually play with the big boys.

      TW

  2. What about Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't see Apple in there at all. They're going x86, I'd think it'd be in their best interests to be involved in the low level stuff so they can bolt on their Apple-specific goop a bit easier.

    1. Re:What about Apple? by SalesEngineer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Apple is using EFI/UEFI for their new Intel Inside Macs, but they haven't joined the group yet.

  3. UEFI, please read this. by robyannetta · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Linux community politely asks the Unified EFI Forum to not add DRM into EFI as this may be construed as anti-competive.

    --
    - Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
    1. Re:UEFI, please read this. by tmilam · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Do you really think they'll take linux into consideration? Of the companies listed, some are dead set against linux, and others, such as IBM and HP - have a vested interest in it. Really, ultimately DRM is unavoidable as it benefits big business. This scares me....Any chance we can get Novell or Red Hat into the UEFI?

    2. Re:UEFI, please read this. by eclectro · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Linux community politely asks the Unified EFI Forum to not add DRM into EFI....

      Dear Linux community;

      DRM is the reason why Unified EFI was formed, otherwise we could stick with a known technology that works reasonably well and not spend heaps of cash to lockdown computers.
      I know that you Linux guys never need to reboot, but many others spend significant amount time doing so. We will use this fact to force this technology adoption by the unwashed masses. We need to start collecting rental fees on everything sent to your computer, you know.

      Love,

      Your corporate pimp-daddy

      P.S. Embrace us and don't fight us. It will be easier that way.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    3. Re:UEFI, please read this. by Punboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Funny, cause Intel, AMD, HP, and DELL are all four linux supporters. Seems to me that Microsoft is the only one that is anti-linux.

      --
      If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
  4. Apple by Henriok · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So.. Is there really any doubt whether Apple will use EFI in their machines? Seriously.. they can't use BIOS now!

    --

    - Henrik

    - when the Shadows descend -
    1. Re:Apple by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Is there really any doubt whether Apple will use EFI in their machines?

      Yes. You'll note that they're not listed as a member. Not invited? Not interested? Working on something else? Will they just license the developed tech from Intel? Who knows. But it's interesting that Dell is there but Apple is not.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
  5. Sceptical... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What's wrong with the PC BIOS anyway? Give or take a few gremlins when new technologies are first introduced, the basic tech seems to have adapted remarkably well for a very long time. Since flashable BIOS technology is now routine, even the early adopter problems don't seem like that great an issue. What's the replacement supposed to offer as an advantage over tried-and-tested, apart from a few buzzwords?

    On a more sinister note, there's no mention in TFA of DRM and the idea of "trusted" computing, but I can't help wondering whether this isn't one of the main aims behind the scenes, given who's supporting this new organisation.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:Sceptical... by Bert64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It doesnt adapt well to serial consoles..
      It has limitations on which parts of the disk it can boot from..
      It's not scriptable..
      It can't be configured in any ways other than what the "setup" program makes available to you..

      OpenFirmware as used by SUN is much nicer, you can run diagnostics, write scripts, and get some low level information about the hardware attached... You can control the whole system from a serial console easily, and even install the OS from there..
      You can also explicitely boot from any partition on your disk, instead of requiring a bootloader in the MBR to do the selection for you.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    2. Re:Sceptical... by Enigma_Man · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What is wrong with PC BIOS, a short list by me:
      • Written in Assembly
      • Not modularized
      • Extremely craptistic source code
      • Stuck with ancient ways of doing things
      • At the mercy of the board manufacturer if you need features outside of what is provided
      • etc, etc.
      Believe me, I love assembly, and use it at any chance I get, but for something that is as complicated as a BIOS has become, it just isn't the right way to do it.

      -Jesse
      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    3. Re:Sceptical... by Enigma_Man · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'd write it in C, with some assembly hooks for the immediate boot process. The BIOS for modern PCs has to do a lot more than it used to: It has to initialize the hardware (which was the original intent, and is fine in assembly), but even that is getting much more complicated now, with networking, wireless, and video. Imagine having to edit BIOS options on a cluster of 300 PCs, it'd take you weeks using Award/AMI BIOS that don't have anything like serial or network console controllability. The big big use I see for something that isn't assembly is the booting process. That's the Achilles' Heel of the BIOS. Ever tried to boot off of a PCI-based SCSI adapter/drive? You probably can do that, but if you have two SCSI cards, you're screwed. The BIOS doesn't know or care how to tell the difference. USB boot is sketchy at best, and even CD-boot varies from manufacturer-to-manufacturer. The Award-BIOS source code is full of patches upon patches to support different quirky hardware that would be much better implemented in C. Things like large hard drive support would almost be trivial in C, but in assembly, you've go to change large swaths of code for larger bit-amounts for drive size. The newest size is 48-bit, which is a large number of TB, but drives keep getting bigger. The code itself is a gigantic mess of thousands of files with a loose grip on reality. There are circular dependencies from hell and code that just shouldn't exist.

      -Jesse

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
  6. More info by asliarun · · Score: 5, Informative

    Read more about EFI here.

  7. The SGI Indy boot PROM monitor. by CyricZ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've always wanted something similar to the old SGI Indy boot PROM monitor, but on PCs. While similar technology is widespread on Sun and Apple machines, amonst others, it is far superior to the simple option-toggling capabilities of most PC BIOSes. The shell was quite handy, and the built-in diagnostic tests were even better.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  8. Who's doing what....? by Rahga · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Intel,
    Maker of overpriced, underperforming processors...

    AMD,
    Leading manufacturer of budget CPUs.....

    Microsoft,
    Singlehandedly proved that breaking antitrust law can be worth the hassle....

    IBM,
    Services provider de jour....

    Dell
    Master of manufacturing, jack of no other trades.

    HP
    Titanic 2000.

    Wow, what a dream team.

    1. Re:Who's doing what....? by aardwolf64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Those are the leaders of the PC market. Perhaps you were expecting someone like eMachines? Had you looked at the article, you would have seen even former industry giants such as AMI and Phoenix, former creators of BIOSes.

  9. Re:Insyde? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    They are a bios firm.

    http://www.insydesw.com.tw/

  10. this wont kill Linux by FudRucker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    there already is too much of a demand for Linux, either UEFI will accept Linux or some motherboard MFGer's will continue to produce mainboards with the old PC BIOS, i don't like the sound of UEFI and will probably go out of my way just to not purchase boards with it...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  11. Re:Hmm... wolves among the sheep... by Shadowsinger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    True, Dell tends to meander along behind whatever the crowd has already done, but IBM and HP both have vested interests in Linux. Somehow, I can't see them allowing MS bully-rights on this one.

  12. Re:I dunno.... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Funny
    Did you hear the plans of Duke Nukem Forever to replace PC BIOS? The advantages are:
    • Intuitive shoot to boot interface.
    • PC health parameters immediatly visible through scene (e.g. if your processor is running hot, you'll get a desert).
    • If your OS doesn't boot any more, you still can have fun with your computer.
    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  13. Ignorance is bliss.... by Manip · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sorry but do you people take the time to read up before you complain? This is a wonderful opportunity for the open source movement. EFI makes booting multiple operating systems like a thousand times easier. Instead of having a single boot record on the hard disk boot information is stored in a data table and given as an option to the user who selections the OS they want.

    This means that Linux can be installed without breaking the existing installations or screwing with the boot loader at all. The DRM is a problem but there is not too much information about if there is going to be a lot of DRM in this new bios replacement.

    1. Re:Ignorance is bliss.... by wirerat1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who are you kidding? While you dismiss the DRM portion by consoling yourself with the notion that there might not be much of it because its not talked about in detail is ludicrious. Of course they aren't going to flail their arms about and go "LOOK HERE! WE ARE GOING TO TAKE YOUR ABILITY TO DO STUFF WITH YOUR PC AWAY!!!" Come on, get real. It will be mentioned as little as possible.

  14. Todays BIOS by BigDuke6_swe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the BIOS of today backwards compatible with a lot of obsolete hardware that require the BIOS to still behave in a certain way? I belive there were hardware components that for example required that BIOS waited for a certain amount of time before processing some commands due to their startup time. And as years has passed by new features have been added while the old ones are kept and at some point it's a unnecesarily messy code.

    --
    Zere vere zwei peanuts valking down der Straße, and von vas assaulted...peanut
  15. Re:One thing UEFI will certainly do is... by pp · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yea right...

    Linux has been booting on EFI Itanium boxes since the beginning, even before there was a 64-bit Windows (outside MSFT labs, that is :-) ).

    EFI is certainly not pretty, but it's still a great improvement.

  16. Best of all this will be Open Sourced by Intel! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The source code for Intel's implementation of EFI can be found at http://www.tianocore.org/

    Also, this standard should finally allow seemless integration of new hardware onto the linux desktop. The main hurdle for desktop linux has always been lack of seemless driver integration.

  17. No Linux Support? by oostevo · · Score: 4, Informative
    Sorry if this spoils your conspiracy theories, but there's already a project on SourceForge (called ELILO) to support the EFI standard.

    And there's a link on the main page of the Intel EFI page.

    --
    In soviet russia, You ask not what country do for you, but what you do for country!
    Oh wait...
  18. Nail on the head right there... by Pollux · · Score: 4, Informative

    What's wrong with the PC BIOS anyway? ... On a more sinister note, there's no mention in TFA of DRM and the idea of "trusted" computing.

    According to the Overview page, Microsoft's listed as the only OS maker. First, why isn't Apple among the lineup? Novell? Red Hat Linux? Perhaps it's because they're not part of the real circle of friends...

    Enter Microsoft's Trusted Computer Platform. According to the TCPA FAQ, the companies belonging to the alliance are: "Microsoft, Intel, IBM, HP and AMD". And let's take a look here...yep, they're all there. But what are they really planning?

    According to the specifications page, nothing's listed as far as features that are to be included (" The UEFI specification is in development"). But currently, since there is no mention as to the true intent of this new technology, and right now the BIOS isn't broken, why reinvent the wheel? Load times are now less than three seconds, which is a tremendous step from BIOS beginnings. New equipment continues to be supported through new BIOS updates. So what do these companies need that the current BIOS can't give them?

    Enter DRM. According to Microsoft's Patent on their DRM-supported OS, Microsoft has a few issues with the current BIOS...This AEGIS model requires a tamper-resistant BIOS that has hard-wired into it the signature of the following stage. This scheme has the very considerable advantage that it works well with current microprocessors and the current PC architecture, but has three drawbacks.

    1) First, the set of trusted operating systems or trusted publishers must be wired into the BIOS.

    2) Second, if the content is valuable enough (for instance, e-cash or Hollywood videos), users will find a way of replacing the BIOS with one that permits an insecure boot.

    3) Third, when obtaining data from a network server, the client has no way of proving to the remote server that it is indeed running a trusted system.

    So, Microsoft admits that there are flaws that prevent them from using the BIOS in their Trusted Computing platform. But create a new way of booting a computer, protect the technical details from public view, and put the power of the DMCA behind it, and you have a nice foundation into the DRM frontier.

  19. Use a Mac by phillymjs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...to find out why BIOS is antiquated crap. Apple didn't invent Open Firmware, but they make very good use of it.

    Four examples:
    -Hold down a key at startup to boot from CD/DVD.
    -Hold down a different key at startup to boot from a network volume (if available).
    -Hold down another different key at startup to give you a menu of all bootable volumes, and boot from the one you want-- external, internal, it doesn't matter.
    -Hold down yet another different key at startup to have the machine act as an external hard drive.

    The features above make troubleshooting a wayward, non-booting Mac a breeze, and they come in very handy at other times as well. If you encounter a non-booting Windows PC, you almost always need another computer nearby to effectively troubleshoot and fix it.

    Ever since Apple announced the move to Intel, I've been a little worried about losing those features-- but I'm hopeful that they will find a way to keep them alive on Intel-based Macs.

    ~Philly

  20. Re:I'm confused? by MisterMurphy · · Score: 3, Informative

    It seems to be a fear of control. When you have complete co-operation between every single layer of a machine, the ability of those in co-operation to dictate terms increases dramatically. If the new CPUs and Mobos only work with EFI, and EFI only lets you boot into DRMed material, and they refuse to license their DRM methods for reasonable amounts, then they can functionally decide what can be done with the computers they create and sell.

  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. Re:You can simply circumvent it... by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As with everytime I post a comment about DRM, someone has to come along and say, "but see, there's a way around it!" Wrong.

    DRM'd OSs will not work if the hardware they run on isn't DRM'd as well. This initiative (along with others that may flurish if this doesn't work -- i.e. Phoenix BIOS) is to make certain that the hardware is protected as well so that people won't be able to easily circumvent the restrictions.

    Why would they bother to go through all of this if it didn't matter?

    I'm going fully Mac when the x86 powermacs come out anyway so Windows is just going to be something I use for emulation purposes.

    An obvious troll but I'll respond anyway: Windows will not run in emulation because of DRM. Sure, they might get an emulation layer up and running but it certainly won't be able to do anything that you would be able to do w/the "appropriate" hardware/software... Software will be trusted. Trusted software will not run on emulation layers.

    Sorry, welcome to the future.

  23. "Linux Supporters" by overshoot · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Funny, cause Intel, AMD, HP, and DELL are all four linux supporters. Seems to me that Microsoft is the only one that is anti-linux.

    All five would be more than happy to have "Linux" be redefined as a cryptographically-signed binary supported by a "responsible" company such as Novell or Red Hat.

    The first four, because it suits their corporate customers. Debian, Gentoo, etc. just divert efforts away from supporting the two major distributions that Really Matter.

    Microsoft, of course, because they know how to "deal with" corporate entities.

    From Microsoft's point of view, F/OSS really is like terrorism. Honest. Like national armies, they know how to wage war against similar entites with known addresses, but have a hard time getting traction against amorphous movements which won't stay put for the ICBM treatment.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."