Google Sponsors the LinuxBIOS project

Rockgod noted that "The LinuxBIOS project aims to take down the last barrier in Open Source systems by providing a free firmware (BIOS) implementation. LinuxBIOS celebrates its Sixth anniversary this year, and has an installed base of over 1 million LinuxBIOS systems. With the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project, that number is expected to exceed 10 million users in 2007. LinuxBIOS supports 65 mainboards from 31 vendors in v1 and another 56 mainboards from 27 vendors in v2"

Comments

It's not the last barrier

[ClosedSource]

to Open Source systems since the microprocessor and other PC hardware is not open.

Re:It's not the last barrier

[McNihil]

So the sparc processor doesn't count?

http://www.sun.com/processors/opensparc/

Enlightened yet?

Re:It's not the last barrier

[smittyoneeach]

What would be the point of a GPL hardware implementation to the individual user?
Who would have the skill (to say nothing of the fab) to make a change to the hardware, and then distribute it?

Eternal game of catch-up?

[Kadin2048]

Aren't the BIOS/firmware revisions specific to various motherboard models?

I always assumed that they were made by Award and Phoenix in conjunction with the mobo/chipset manufacturers, because the BIOS was specific to a particular configuration of parts, and wouldn't be interchangeable.

So if you did write an "open source BIOS," how would you keep it up to date with the multitude of different chipsets and motherboards? Wouldn't each one require its own modified version? Seems like, unless the major motherboard manufacturers commit to using LinuxBIOS, that they'll forever be playing catch-up, trying to modify and QA their revisions against new pieces of hardware. Which I guess isn't a bad thing, but it seems like it'll never be mainstream that way.

Re:Eternal game of catch-up?

[sgtrock]

If a motherboard vendor chooses to use the FOSS BIOS, then I would assume that the vendor would recognize that it was in their interest to make sure that any changes to the hardware elements on their motherboard lines would necessarily require that they demand that their parts vendors work with the FOSS BIOS project to make sure that the low level drivers are working correctly.

I suppose it's possible that such a motherboard vendor might want to donate engineering time and samples to the project as well. They would have to weigh the cost of that effort against a host of other costs; licensing costs to use Award or Phoenix, the size of the expected market for the combined product, etc. Show them that the FOSS BIOS will work for MS Vista and they'll have a real incentive to push for it. Tell them that the market will be limited to just Linux and *BSD and they'll probably lose interest really fast.

Re:Eternal game of catch-up?

[Kadin2048]

Only a very small minority of people, even among open-source-software users, are capable of interpreting source code and modifying it.

Also, even a person that did know code, would need to be very comfortable (I would think) to write or change something that could potentially brick their mobo.

So whether the code is modifiable or not, really isn't relevant to all but a few users, at least in the direct sense. There are indirect benefits of having code available (see my other post in this thread concerning the indirect benefits of OSS to non-coders), but most people are going to look at the piece of software as a unit, and ask whether it works, and if it doesn't, they're going to move on to something else. The benefits of OSS are rarely so great as to make hiring a skilled programmer to modify it for you worthwhile.

It sounds from TFA that they have a nice automated QA system set up, where new revisions get tested against actual hardware automatically, but they're going to have to sustain an awfully high level of effort, in order to keep creating and testing new software revisions to cope with all the new boards that get released to the market every month.

I'm not panning the project; I really hope they succeed. It just seems like yet another project that probably won't have direct support from the hardware manufacturers, and as a result will always be one step behind mainstream usability. Perhaps that's okay -- maybe "mainstream usability" is overrated. But it's something worth considering.

Re:Eternal game of catch-up?

[kfg]

So whether the code is modifiable or not, really isn't relevant to all but a few users, at least in the direct sense.

Who said anything about users?

It just seems like yet another project that probably won't have direct support from the hardware manufacturers

Yes. That is what; and only what, is required.

. . .maybe "mainstream usability" is overrated.

It is. It can be a positive hinderence if you're not mainstream.

KFG

Re:why would a major manufacturer of motheboards

[Lumpy]

Why would a major manufacturer of motheboards want to stay away from Linux for BIOS?

What do Award and Phoenix have better than Linux?

two simple reasons.

1 - they do what they are told by the OS and content industries. "Trusted computing" is a buzzword they spent lots of money on.
2 - A linux Bios will not have the ability to lock the user on DRM or Os choices. something they desperately want at Microsoft. D oyuo think a company will make a motherboard that microsoft will refuse to support their os on? how about one that will never run windows VistaXP2 with "Protect you from you" technology? because the Bios does not refuse to boot an OS without a Microsoft certificate?

Try and buy yourself an ATX Alpha processor motherboard or Power PC motherboard. They exist but are insane priced because nobody buys them but uber geeks and research/science people....

Do you want your next Linux computer to cost you 3 times as much because your Motherboard costs $1800.00?

Re:Why bother?

[elgaard]

> Why would I care about the BIOS?

For the same reason you care about other programs being open. E.g.

- Fixing bug. Eg hibernate problems.

- Checking for bugs and backdoord.

- Improving it to your needs. E.g., I would like to be able to boot from USB-disks or a CFlash card in a PCI-adaptor.
Or I could remove unnecessary stuff and put in a shell. Or an SSH server i the BIOS.

- Performance. My BIOS is slow. It does a lot of unnecessary things.

- Consistency. Next time I get a new computer, it would be nice to have the same bios. A company might prefer to use the same BIOS on all computers.

Re:why would a major manufacturer of motheboards

[kfg]

Try and buy yourself an ATX Alpha processor motherboard or Power PC motherboard. They exist but are insane priced because nobody buys them but uber geeks and research/science people....

Similarly 12/24/48VDC ATX power supplies are also available off the shelf; at about three hudred bucks a pop. But if you're the sort of uber geek research/science person who really needs one, well, that's what you pay.

However, if, eventually, enough people get sick enough of the MS locked down systems there just might be a market for an outside player to hit one out of the park with an open system. That's why MS and its familiars are trying hard to get laws passed to forbid it.

KFG

OSS has benefits to non-coders.

[Kadin2048]

End users aren't going to modify their processors and have them fabricated, but then again, "end users" for the most part, aren't going to open up the source code to their applications and make any sort of nontrivial adjustments to them, and recompile them.

Writing code and recompiling a piece of software is almost as much a black art to most people, as designing a microprocessor and fabricating a chip is.

Source code is meaningless gibberish to most users, regardless of whether that source code describes hardware or software. Code written in VHDL is just a slightly more arcane strain of gibberish than C, but still meaningless.

Most people (who have even the foggiest idea of open source) benefit from it indirectly: by having higher-quality products to begin with, and having them available from more vendors, and having a guarantee that if a vendor tanks, that their product stands a better chance of being supported by somebody else (because another company or organization can take it over). This would also be true with hardware. An open and well-documented chip design would be available, were it popular, from a variety of vendors, and even if one vendor went out of business, the design would survive. These benefits exist even to people who cannot understand code, and exist for both hardware and software.