Slashdot Mirror
UEFI Formed to Replace BIOS
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."
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
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.
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.
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 -
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.
Read more about EFI here.
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
...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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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,