Slashdot Mirror


Get Speed-Booting with an Open BIOS

An anonymous reader writes to mention that IBM Developer Works has a quick look at some of the different projects that are working on replacing proprietary BIOS systems with streamlined code that can load a Linux kernel much faster. Most of the existing BIOS systems tend to have a lot of legacy support built in for various things, and projects like LinuxBIOS and OpenBIOS are working to trim the fat.

57 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. Flash drives by drivinghighway61 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Speeding up BIOS processes combined with flash boot drives will seriously decrease loading time. Are we closer to instant-on computers?

    1. Re:Flash drives by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I seem to remember the Commodore 64 being instant on. Granted our current computers are much more complicated than a Commodore 64, but it would be nice to get back to that instant-on era. Everything else seems to have gotten faster, or remained the same speed, the only thing that seems to continually get slower is boot times.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Flash drives by the_humeister · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In Windows you can have the computer's current state be saved and loaded the next time the computer is booted. Is there an option to load the state of the machine on a fresh boot? That would save time on reboots.

    3. Re:Flash drives by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, the C=64 was instant-on, but you had like 30 second seek times for the floppy disk, which is where anything exiting to run lived. If all you wanted to do was simple command line instructions to "load $program * , 8" you could call it "instant on" but you got almost nothing for it, and to get to any user app functionality up and running, it still took a long time, vastly longer than it does now.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    4. Re:Flash drives by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sure, the C64 booted in a jiffy. Then it took 5 minutes to load a 50 KB app from the floppy drive. (Which is kind of silly, since the floppy drive had a CPU inside with as much horsepower as the main system unit itself.)

    5. Re:Flash drives by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Informative

      I work with embedded systems, and my MIPS-based 166MHz board boots Linux in about 5 seconds, kernel loading starts almost immediately after power on.

      I always wanted to have the same capability for my notebook. Sigh...

    6. Re:Flash drives by vux984 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is there an option to load the state of the machine on a fresh boot? That would save time on reboots.

      I have 4GB of RAM (2x2GB) with Windows x64, and expect to have 8GB within the year. I've tried the hibernate or whatever its called. Its not really faster. The time time to save and load that 4GB file is non-trivial. In theory its nice when you've got a lot of open stuff on the go, but then I don't trust it enough not to save all my work properly anyway.

      Overall, I don't think its that great, and I particularly don't like that its the default in vista. For example, when support tells you to reboot they want a fresh start, half the time the users just turn it off and on, instead of 'reboot', and under vista that just bounces into hibernate and back and accomplishes absolutely nothing.

    7. Re:Flash drives by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you plugged in a cartridge it was instant-on for those apps too. Now there's even a peripheral, the MMC64 that lets you use SD cards on your Commodore 64, so I don't see anything that indicates we couldn't have instant on for writable media either nowadays, which was the point of the original post.

      Incidentally, did the 1451 drive have as fast a CPU as the Commodore 64? I know the 1451-II's CPU was actually faster, and you could actually offload CPU processing to it across the serial interface, and some games even did this.

    8. Re:Flash drives by Saxerman · · Score: 2, Informative
      The original Amiga 1000 had the Kickstart ROM chips, which allowed them to boot nigh-instantly. This included the important parts of the OS, and later even drivers and the kitchen sink. You would literally have a splash screen for a second, and then having a functioning computer complete with GUI. Of course, this means surgery was required to swap in a new Kickstart ROM. And as later software required different versions of Kickstart to run, we started playing with different software kickers which allowed you to load different versions via floppy disks.

      The later versions (or, at least, the A500 and A2000 I used) stopped hard coding Kickstart on a chip, and you then needed to load the entire OS from a single 1.5MB floppy. Or, for the more affluent, a hard disk.

      --

      A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.

    9. Re:Flash drives by SenorCitizen · · Score: 3, Insightful
      No, that's not quite right. The original Amiga 1000 didn't come with Kickstart ROMs, because the OS was still in a state of change. Instead, you had to load Kickstart from disk, and it ate up 256k of the 512k of RAM installed. Later Amigas came with ROM Kickstarts and could be started without a disk. The full Workbench environment still had to be loaded from disk, just like with the A1000 - on which you actually needed two disks to get the whole OS up and running.

      The Atari ST, on the other hand, had the whole OS in ROM, except for the very first models. Even STs weren't instant-on though, because the bootloader would waste at least half a minute looking for a disk to boot from - it was actually faster to have a GEM disk with custom settings in the drive when turning the power on than booting from ROM only.

    10. Re:Flash drives by rucs_hack · · Score: 3, Funny

      All you C64 people, grr.

      My spectrum was awesome, and by dint of the fact that I couldn't afford a C64 (or even a Vic 20), I opted for the '48k ZX spectrum beats your computer any day' line of reasoning, and affected temporary blindness when anyone started showing off sprites.

      Ah yes, the hours of tapping away on a rubber keyboard. Hungry Horace, oh how many evenings you ate.

      I took it out of storage and showed my son last year. He looked at it in a puzzled fashion and asked where the dvd drive was.

      Crying is not manly, so I just mumbled and put it away again..

    11. Re:Flash drives by rs79 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Correct.

      Its predecessor the Atari 800 was instant on. Pop in the basic cartridge, turn the power on and ther you were. In Basic land. At least the Amiga had C.

      And cool graphics.

      I was shocked to find there were people (Mike Meyer, how can I remember this stuff and still not remember where I put my glasses?) that didn't give a rats ass about the grpahics but just wanted to code C on a CPU with a linear address space ("segments are for worms").

      Matt Dillon (Of FreeBSD and Dargonfly BSD fame) ported Bash to the Amiga. He must have been like, 8 or something at the time.

      And there was a UUCP package for it too. During a brief period there were more Amigas on the network than PCs.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    12. Re:Flash drives by GreggBz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You definitely have it backwards. The A1000 had no Kickstart ROM, you had to load it from disk. This changed with every model afterwards. I will say that it took some time to load Workbench, with that drive churning away.

      If you just wanted a shell and bypassed your startup sequence it was faster still. Even with the full blown GUI, it was still much quicker then it's PC counterparts.

      Now, an Amiga with a flash drive, that's a sight to see. My A1200, which once had a 44 pin IDE-Flash adapter booted all of OS 3.9 (A pretty robust OS) silently in about 10 seconds.

      The Atari ST was the same way early on, you had to load the OS from disk. The kernel went from disk right to memory when it booted up, which reduced the addressable memory by about 160KB. Thankfully, Atari did away with that.

      Atari ST with the GEM-DOS ROMS booted much faster then the Amiga!
      But the Amiga was better every other way I think. :-p

    13. Re:Flash drives by domatic · · Score: 2, Informative

      You didn't even need a GEM disk. A blank floppy would suffice to satisfy the on-boot disk check. Gosh, I haven't thought about doing that in years. It used to be a way of life.........

    14. Re:Flash drives by Bert64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, i come from the school of leaving your machine running 24/7, and I always liked the convenience of all my apps immediately available when i started work in the morning. I never had a laptop, and i always had a lot of programs running. If i ever had to reboot for whatever reason it was a HUGE annoyance having to reload everything. Not just the loading time, but the time spent laying my apps out just how i like them on all the virtual workspaces i had.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    15. Re:Flash drives by droopycom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The thing is if you want capabilities on your embedded systems to come close to your notebook's capabilities, they will take 1 minute to boot instead of 5 sec.

      My CD player used to boot instantly... but just try to boot an HD-DVD or BluRay player....

    16. Re:Flash drives by Cyberax · · Score: 2, Informative

      This embedded system contains:
      1. Three Ethernet controllers.
      2. VGA contoller.
      3. Two RS-232 controllers.
      4. Flash drive.
      5. PCI bus.
      6. WiFi card.
      And it starts booting Linux kernel in less than a second after power on.

      I don't see why my notebook should take about 8 seconds JUST TO START BOOTING THE KERNEL.

      Current HD players are too brain-damaged, so it's not a good comparison.

    17. Re:Flash drives by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I believe part of the time is spent probing the various busses to construct the correct ACPI tables (or OpenFirmware device tree). This is not required in an embedded system, where the hardware configuration is expected not to change.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  2. What about Abstraction? by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't it more important for the BIOS to present an efficient abstraction of certain hardware resources that *any* OS can easily communicate with according to a standard interface than to optimize support, possibly at the expense of flexibility and abstraction, for a single OS (even if that OS is Linux)? The violation of abstraction merely for performance improvements is something that engineers should generally be very reluctant to do.

    1. Re:What about Abstraction? by krog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Modern OSes don't trust what the BIOS tells them, due to older BIOSes that can't be trusted. With this fact in mind, you can imagine how getting the BIOS mostly out of the way can gain a few seconds at boot time without losing anything practical.

    2. Re:What about Abstraction? by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't it more important for the BIOS to present an efficient abstraction of certain hardware resources that *any* OS can easily communicate with according to a standard interface than to optimize support, possibly at the expense of flexibility and abstraction, for a single OS (even if that OS is Linux)?

      Why ? Does any OS actually use BIOS for anything except booting anymore ? AFAIR even most DOS programs bypassed BIOS screen routines (which is why redirection didn't work so well on DOS) and talked to the hardware directly. And I'm certain Linux doesn't use BIOS for hard disk access, since Linux can use the whole disk even if BIOS is limited to the first 120MB or so of it in some really old machines.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    3. Re:What about Abstraction? by BlowHole666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Funny that is what the OS is supposed to do also. But now they come with stuff built in. Maybe if the BIOS was left alone and the OS was fixed to do just what it was supposed to do and not worry about the rest of the crap.

      It does not matter if I run Linux, or Windows they both start with crap running in the background. A normal user has no clue what is running. Why not when you install the OS you just ask "Do you want a Firewall? Do you want a Server? Do you want to update your system time over the internet? Do you want to back your computer up every night" It is like most systems just install bloat ware because they *think* normal users want this stuff. Or it provides security. Well write the OS correctly where you do not specifically need a firewall or anti virus, or updates every Tuesday.

      Sorry got on a rant. I am just saying Let the Bios do its job...boot the system. Let the OS do its job, Schedule task, manage memory, and provide access to hardware.

      --
      I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
    4. Re:What about Abstraction? by CyberLord+Seven · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Danger! Will Robinson! Linux boxen tend to be used far longer than Windoze boxen.

      Purely anectdotal, but I see a LOT of Linux boxen that are very old running not so old Linux kernels.

      This means, over a period of time, you have a greater chance of creating a NEW Linux only legacy support issue with newer kernels running on old machines.

      This should not stop progress, but it is something that should be recognized up front.

      --
      We have always been at war with Eurasia!
    5. Re:What about Abstraction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Isn't it more important for the BIOS to present an efficient abstraction of certain hardware resources that *any* OS can easily communicate with according to a standard interface than to optimize support, possibly at the expense of flexibility and abstraction, for a single OS (even if that OS is Linux)?

      These guys are simply taking advantage of the fact that the BIOS is an unusably bad abstraction. Linux doesn't make BIOS calls, nor does Windows (since before Windows 2000). If you're booting Linux and XP, your BIOS is doing a bunch of slow hardware autodetection, and then passing the baton to your kernel, which ignores that and does its own faster and more reliable hardware detection.

      In that sense, if you really want the BIOS abstraction layer, the first step would be to write a reliable one. Putting Linux in there is the logical first step. If you want to hack LinuxBIOS to do the full hardware autodetection, and then hack Linux to trust hardware info from LinuxBIOS, you're welcome to do so (though the benefits are unclear).

      We broke this abstraction in Linux for reliability, not performance. If somebody wants to remove some useless old cruft to increase performance for free, I have no problem with that.

    6. Re:What about Abstraction? by phantomlord · · Score: 2, Interesting
      My nntp/webserver:

      cat /proc/cpuinfo
      processor : 0
      vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
      cpu family : 5
      model : 8
      model name : AMD-K6(tm) 3D processor
      stepping : 12
      cpu MHz : 451.021

      # cat /proc/version
      Linux version 2.6.22-gentoo-r6 (root@hell) (gcc version 4.1.2 (Gentoo 4.1.2)) #1 Fri Sep 14 15:07:46 EDT 2007
      IIRC, I bought the processor and motherboard in May 1999, probably around the same time I finally registered my /. account.
      --
      Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
    7. Re:What about Abstraction? by billcopc · · Score: 4, Informative

      You, like many others before you, are confusing BIOS with what was once called "CMOS Setup".

      The BIOS is essentially a set of low-level device drivers for the motherboard and basic peripherals (keyboard, display). Overclockers don't care about it, as long as it works.

      The "CMOS Setup", or more appropriately System Setup, is an interface to configure the motherboard's features. The fancier ones offer many tweaking options, some even have a minimal Linux OS like the Asus P5K3 Deluxe (extremely handy for pre-boot stuff - or web/media browsing). Overclockers love big feature-rich control panel on their board as they allow them to tweak their system to further heights, and offer added functionality like built-in flashing (from a USB key or hard drive) and "smart" overclocking which is like the opposite of Intel Speedstep :)

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    8. Re:What about Abstraction? by vidarh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think any reasonably modern OS actually does what you suggest, other than possibly as a last resort fallback (though I'm not even sure anybody does that). Linux for example can run perfectly fine on a BIOS-less system with only extremely minor modifications in the boot/init code (I don't know if even that is needed anymore - it's been years since I did that last).

  3. Deck chairs on the Titanic by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The majority of boot time is spent initializing drivers and bringing the system to a usable state. The 3 seconds it takes for the BIOS to init the disk, locate the MBR, load the bootloader, and jump to it is negligible compared to the tedious hardware scanning and initialization done by the OS itself when it is finally loaded by the bootloader.

    If you want to speed up the boot sequence, take a look at cutting the number of attached devices down to the bare minimum. Don't start any services during init. Do as little as possible to get the system to its usable state and you'll have minimized the boot time. Unfortunately, technology just doesn't work that way. System requirements (of both a hardware and a software nature) will require that you perform extra initialization at boot time, so any possible gains are already offset by the increased load.

    Getting off of x86 may be one way to optimize the boot process, but how many of us really have the wherewithal to make an architecture jump from x86?

    1. Re:Deck chairs on the Titanic by Chirs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know what hardware you have, but it takes a LOT more than 3 seconds for my machine to do its POST, check the floppy drive, check the CDROM, check the SCSI cable, find my hard drives, check the partition tables, and finally start up my bootloader.

      Probably more like 30 seconds.

    2. Re:Deck chairs on the Titanic by KC1P · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're absolutely right. It seems like every OS (including Linux) goes through this -- in the early days it boots much faster than the competition, but once people start routinely layering all kinds of junk on it then it starts taking minutes to boot even on super-fast hardware.

      What really bugs me is how much of the startup config is done serially. A lot of startup tasks take time, and step N+1 has to wait until step N is finished whether or not it depends on that step. It seems to me that it would be worth the trouble to mechanize startup so that each step is isolated from all the others and knows which previous step it's dependent on and waits for only that step, while everything else cruises ahead in parallel. It'd be a big change from the way things are done now but it'd be worth it. Having my system stop dead for 60 seconds on every boot just because one of the NICs is unplugged (so DHCP isn't answering) is really annoying. Same deal with Apache choking on virtual domains ... one at a time ... if the name server isn't answering. All those "wait X seconds for Y to happen" things can really add up.

      Also, Linux isn't the entire universe, and some of us really do use those legacy BIOS features. Backwards compatibility is the *only* reason the PC architecture has survived, so deciding to toss that to the wind now is just stupid. The cost is minimal (it's not like the code is going to change once it's written) and if whipping up a few tables and setting a couple of INT vectors is honestly adding dozens of seconds to the boot time, well that's just programmer incompetence, it's not the architecture's fault. The rest of the older BIOS code doesn't do anything if you don't call it, so this just sounds like an excuse to be lazy.

    3. Re:Deck chairs on the Titanic by Karellen · · Score: 4, Informative

      It seems to me that it would be worth the trouble to mechanize startup so that each step is isolated from all the others and knows which previous step it's dependent on and waits for only that step, while everything else cruises ahead in parallel.

      We're working on it...
      --
      Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
    4. Re:Deck chairs on the Titanic by sconeu · · Score: 2

      Because it's so easy to boot from a hard drive that hasn't spun up yet.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    5. Re:Deck chairs on the Titanic by Seq · · Score: 2, Informative

      Any distribution that ships with Network Manager (such as recent Ubuntu versions, I'm assuming suse as well) do this. For wireless, it may only works for interactive graphical sessions, but should work without an interactive session for a wired connection (on my desktop I have a network connection without logging in)

      Also, ifplugd is extremely simple to install and requires extremely minimal configuration. I used this in college for a number of years without issue before all this fancy new stuff.

      --
      -- Seq
  4. Why not EFI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Why not use EFI?

    It does what you want and has been in desktop computers (Macs) for over a year now.

    1. Re:Why not EFI? by DeathPenguin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      EFI is a specification, not an implementation, where the core pieces are still controlled (And _never_ opened up) by vendors and is usually still a big wad of real mode assembly that nobody wants to touch. There is no 100% open-source EFI-compliant BIOS implementation. The specification alone for EFI is over 1,000 pages.

      To top it all off, to even begin development on stuff like Tianocore you need to agree to draconian licensing terms such as: "You acknowledge and agree that You will not, directly or indirectly: (i) reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the underlying source code or underlying ideas or algorithms of the Software; (ii) modify, translate, or create derivative works based on the Software; (iii) rent, lease, distribute, sell, resell or assign, or otherwise transfer rights to the Software; or (iv) remove any proprietary notices in the Software." ( https://www.tianocore.org/nonav/servlets/LegalNotices?type=TermsOfService ).

      So I guess your question is sort of like asking why people don't like to use proprietary drivers, even though there are some out there that work very well. The nice thing about Macs is that Apple seems to have went out of their way to make EFI invisible to the user. I don't trust that this will happen on most other pieces of hardware. The BIOS belongs out of the way, IMHO.

    2. Re:Why not EFI? by segedunum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because EFI is very much proprietary, and the subject of this article is Linux and Open BIOS.

      EFI is also pretty broken. It tries to look better than BIOS, but really it isn't. Think of ACPI (Intel brain damage, as Linus Torvalds calls it) which looked good and looked like we'd get some standard interfaces.........and we didn't because hardware was too complex, it had quirks and everybody ended up doing variations on a different theme. EFI is the same, because of course, everybody's intellectual property has to be protected. I mean, we can't just have manufacturers downloading, installing and contributing to a standard Linux or OpenBIOS, because that would be too easy, it would make things work far too well and everyone would have wonderful boot times ;-). Maybe a motherboard manufacturer will bite the bullet and implement Linux or OpenBIOS when they realise how much better it will make their hardware, and how much cheaper it is without umpteen updates.

      EFI is also an awful lot more complex than BIOS, which adds to the list of things to go wrong in terms of different implementations. At least the BIOS we have today is a boot loader - and it doesn't really pretend to be anything else (hell, you'd be crazy to try anything else with it!). Now think about how many BIOS updates we have for various boards today to fix lots of broken things, and then extrapolate that out........... It's not a pretty picture.

    3. Re:Why not EFI? by TemporalBeing · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why not use EFI?
      Because it an UEFI - and its cousin that PheonixBIOS, which now seems to be defunct (can't find a reference to it) - are part of the Trusted Computing/Paladium nightmare. if you want TPM to lock you out of your computer or tell you how to use your computer, than so be it.

      I choose freedom.
      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
  5. In theory, yes. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But the problem is that the BIOS's cannot be trusted today.

    So the more advanced operating systems probe the devices themselves to see what capabilities are available.

    We've arrived at the point where we need to choose between updating the BIOS's on the motherboards every time a new capability is added (and all previous motherboards) ... or just simplifying the BIOS to the point where it can boot the OS and allow the OS to probe everything.

    It's easier to update the OS than the BIOS.

  6. I wouldn't touch this! by schnikies79 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As the subject states, I wouldn't touch this, unless it was an official release from my board manufacturer. With a bad install or software bug, I can just re-install, but a bad bios can hose the motherboard. I might try it if someone had it running on the exact same hardware, down to part #'s for the ram.

    I'm admittedly not terribly bleeding-edge when it comes to hardware or electronics, but mucking with my bios is a no no.

    --
    Gone!
    1. Re:I wouldn't touch this! by DeathPenguin · · Score: 2, Informative

      >>I might try it if someone had it running on the exact same hardware, down to part #'s for the ram.

      Fortunately, you don't need exact matching hardware to recover from a botched BIOS update if you have a socketed BIOS chip. The flash memory your BIOS is stored on can be easily removed, placed in someone else's computer with a compatible socket (It can be a whole different architecture, even), and reprogrammed with the vendor's BIOS using Linux+Windows compatible utilities such as Flashrom ( http://linuxbios.org/Flashrom ), vendor-provided flash utilities which usually run in DOS, or through Linux MTD. There are even services set up to do it for you ( http://www.badflash.com/ ) if you don't have access to another mainboard with a compatible socket.

      Unfortunately, BIOS upgrades can become necessary after purchasing a machine if only to support more advanced CPUs (Remember the transition to dual-core CPUs?), to get power management right, etc. The lesson: If you're worried about BIOS updates, buy a motherboard with a socketed BIOS.

    2. Re:I wouldn't touch this! by evilviper · · Score: 2, Informative

      With a bad install or software bug, I can just re-install, but a bad bios can hose the motherboard.

      No it can't.

      First, it's been several years since I saw a motherboard with a socketed Flash chip, and even then, it was only the dirt cheap OEM boards from the likes of Dell/HP/etc, while the retail boards used a socket.

      It's actually pretty easy to buy a replacement Flash chip, or salvage one from a dead system, and do a little hot-swap trick to Flash it with your current BIOS image for back-up/recovery purposes.

      Secondly, the better motherboard manufacturers (MSI, Asus, Gigabyte) have included recovery methods for a few years now, either in the form of a dual Flash chips, or a built-in mini-BIOS of sorts, that can read an image from a floppy disk and flash the BIOS, even if you otherwise can't boot.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  7. Disk-on-Chip Linux by RancidPickle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If they could come up with a dedicated Linux Bios combined with a Disk-on-Chip setup, it would make an impressive little computer. Fast-on, perhaps with a drive or removable flash drive, and all updatable. It certainly could make an inexpensive box, and could be an ideal homework machine for the kids or a combo stand-alone box / terminal for offices. If the network went down, people could still work.

    --
    "First things first, but not necessarily in that order."
    - Doctor Who
    1. Re:Disk-on-Chip Linux by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 2, Informative

      If they could come up with a dedicated Linux Bios combined with a Disk-on-Chip setup, it would make an impressive little computer.


      Yeah, but who would do such a thing? http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=870&num=1
  8. Benefits from experience by vil3nr0b · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have repaired clusters for the last two years and most have OpenBios. These are the likes: 1)Fast as hell!! 2)Easy to change options 3)Can mount the file to a disk, edit, and then replace. 4)Errors can be determined by watching console, No video needed. One serial cable, One laptop=priceless. 5)Free

  9. Open BIOS is Mission Critical. by asphaltjesus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why? Well, Trusted Platform Computing needs to start on the BIOS level in order to maintain a trusted environment. If motherboard manufacturers actually move to an always-on TPM, then OSS developers may be locked out of newer hardware.

    The mobo manufacturers will love the price versus commercial tpm and thereby limiting tpm deployment.

    That's why getting involved with these projects in particular is essential to everyone who understands the importance of computing Freedom and overall innovation.

    --
    Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
  10. To save time: by seebs · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, I don't know that much about what's happened in the field in the year and a month or so since this article went up, a month or so after I wrote it. I've been busy.

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
  11. Flash Hibernate by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I want my PC to hibernate to flash, storing an image that requires only the slightest update to reflect network state, time, and a few other counters. And all apps to store their state so they can be "rebooted" to flush memory leaks, but return to their highlevel state.

    That would give instant-on that's great for mobiles, but also good for desktops. Why is that so hard? Isn't hibernating to flash with a little update a lot easier than rewriting the BIOS?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  12. Re:Did you ever notice? by BUL2294 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You honestly think your BIOS is slow? Ever watch a 4.77MHz IBM XT with 640KB RAM go thru its memory test and POST?

    16 KB OK.....(5 sec).....32 KB OK.....(5 sec).....48 KB OK.....(5 sec).....64 KB OK.....(5 sec).....

    I seem to remember it taking 1 minute to go thru the memory test.

    --
    Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
  13. Re:Did you ever notice? by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can be as skeptical as you like. LinuxBIOS has been doing 3s boots.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  14. why the PC is so slow to boot by Skapare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One major reason a PC is so slow to boot is the totally free-wheeling nature of attached devices. There's actually too much liberty to do bad things in device hardware. In some cases, probes to see if a certain specific device is present can cause some other device to go into a locked up state. PCs also have the complication that interrupts don't really identify the device in the same terms as how you access the device. This means we have to do things like timed waits in device probes. Ideally we should be able to discover all the devices in a computer within a millisecond for as many as 100 devices.

    We need a whole new system level (as opposed to CPU level) architecture. We need to have a uniform device address range for all devices, and a uniform set of basic commands for all devices. Then all devices in the same class (storage devices are one class, network interfaces is another class, etc) to have a common set of commands to operate the normally expected functions of that device class.

    And we really don't need a BIOS, or at least not much of one. A simple switch that lets us select between 2 flash areas to load at reset or power on would handle almost all cases. And even that's not necessary if we choose to run a stripped down boot selector program from flash that lets us select other flash areas to load. That combined with a hardware based "JTAG over USB" protocol to store new flash images when no present ones work (maybe when an on-mainboard or rear-access switch enables it) would provide any needed recovery capability.

    And why can't we have gigabytes of flash? I bought a 2GB SD card the other day for $20. Can't they put that on the mainboard? An SD slot would not only provide for a lot of capacity (way more than what you get on a CDROM), but also a means to stop writing, and a means to swap out bad flash or reload it in another computer.

    I have been working on a description document for a new architecture. It's not ready, yet, or I would post it here. But I'll try to speed it up.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:why the PC is so slow to boot by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That depends on the hardware. If you have to deal with legacy ISA devices, yes. Anything in the last 5 years or so doesn't have an ISA bus. The PCI bus has a defined way for devices to identify themselves and what I/O addresses and interrupts they need. USB similarly has a defined way to determine what's on the bus. Since the BIOS itself controls things like on-motherboard serial ports, it already knows which ones it's turning on and where they go. So basic initialization should be relatively quick and easy.

      Frankly the only things the BIOS should need to do with modern OSes is to reset the hardware and provide the basic I/O interface to the disks, screen and keyboard that any boot loader's going to need (so the boot loader doesn't need drivers for video, USB vs. keyboard-port keyboards, etc.).

      Alternatively, the BIOS should initialize all hardware, assign all interrupts etc., and the OS should simply take what the BIOS gave it. But IMO having the BIOS do only the minimum required and leaving the bulk of the work up to the OS gives more flexibility and resilience in the face of hardware changes or failures.

    2. Re:why the PC is so slow to boot by evilviper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      An SD slot would not only provide for a lot of capacity (way more than what you get on a CDROM), but also a means to stop writing, and a means to swap out bad flash or reload it in another computer.

      The cost of the hardware needed to support an SD card slot (fully, in hardware-only, before POST) would be more than the cost of a lot of ($40) low-end motherboards.

      Directly wiring a Flash chip to the memory space is MUCH cheaper, and what's more, the most basic socket for the Flash/CMOS has all the same advantages of an SD card slot... ie. It's not the inability to swap chips that stops people from doing more experimentation with their motherboard's firmware.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  15. Speed booting??? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Funny

    Speed boot: (noun) What we water ski behind in Canada.

    Thanks, I'm here all week. Try the veal. :-P

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  16. Not needed. by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My Home server boots from a Sandisk 4G CF drive. Speedwise, it is blazing. The mounts are a bit different. / is on the drive, while /home, /opt, and parts of /var (such as /var/logs) are on HDD. Roughly, any directory that varies is put on HDD. Next year, I will buy another CF only it will be 8G. By then, the price will be much lower, and the speeds increased.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  17. Yeah - but why do this check every friggin' time? by cheros · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My main bone of contention with the bootup checks is that they test for somethign new where 99% of the time such 'new' doesn't exist. Once a box is stable, all that will go in and out is USB devices and the odd CD or DVD, so it would immensely speed things up if we could register the device status somewhere and thus get rid of all this useless probing.

    We're running machines that are clocked in the GHz, yet bootup is still no faster than an ancient 80386 at 25MHz - despite Linux BIOS demonstrations that were so fast to come online they had to slow it down because the hard disks hadn't quite spun up yet.

    When we get to the OS, the same observation applies. There too are wait states which only exist because of the default assumption of change. Why not give the user the option to lock that state so you don't have to probe for it other than (as said) USB, DVD and maybe a new DHCP lease? That was what suspend is trying to do as well, but that is made more complex by the need to come out of it and (again) check if something has changed other than time..

    About the only time you'd need to trigger a full check is unplanned shutdown because such a drop may have caused damage. Just my 2 cents, of course. I haven't designed hardware or coded in a good 2 decades now so I may be a little bit rusty :-).

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  18. Re:Did you ever notice? by JesseL · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And then the OS (as long as it's less than 10-15 years old) does it all over again. A Modern BIOS should do as little as possible before handing operations over to the operating system.

    --
    "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
  19. Apple's launchd by Malekin · · Score: 2, Informative

    Also, Apple released launchd under the Apache licence specifically to make it easier for other systems to adopt.