Slashdot Mirror
MoBo Manufacturer Foxconn Refuses To Support Linux
Noodlenose notes a thread up on the Ubuntu forums, where a user is questioning the practices of hardware manufacturer Foxconn. The user describes how his new Foxconn motherboard caused his Linux install to freeze and fire off weird kernel errors. He disassembles the BIOS and concludes that a faulty DSDT table is responsible for the errors. Even though the user makes Foxconn aware of the problem, they refuse to correct it, as 'it doesn't support Linux' and is only 'Microsoft certified.' The user speculates darkly on Foxconn's motives. Read the forum, read the code, and come to your own conclusions. "I disassembled my BIOS to have a look around, and while I won't post the results here, I'll tell you what I did find. They have several different tables, a group for Windows XP and Vista, a group for 2000, a group for NT, Me, 95, 98, etc. that just errors out, and one for LINUX. The one for Linux points to a badly written table that does not correspond to the board's ACPI implementation.' The worst part is Foxconn's insistence that the product is ACPI compliant because their tables passed to Windows work, and that Microsoft gave the the magic WHQL certification."
In my workplace we run Windows, OS X, and Linux. I have the expectation of being able to use Linux on any x86 kit we buy. Absent an explanation or attitude change from this vendor, I won't recommend their kit here for Windows use either. That seems somewhat important so I'll repeat it:
I will not buy Foxconn kit for Windows use if Linux compatibility is impaired.
First, Foxconn's hardware isn't the only with DSDT errors. Every use a Dell? HP? Considering how sloppily lots of this BIOS code is written, it's a miracle anything works at all. These errors only mean that he's stuck using APM in place of ACPI. If the user wanted a decent motherboard, he'd have bought it from ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI, etc. It's not some conspiracy, it's a cheap motherboard vendor using a defective BIOS that doesn't give crap about it's customers. Really, how's that not normal?
Although this vendor seems definitely not trying to support Linux with it's BIOS, the hard truth is that it's not so easy even for those who try. For more information, there is currently a thread on the LKML disussing this and how to improve the situation.
In particular, latest kernels claim to be every versions of Windows at the same time, and not Linux! That's not easy to handle for the BIOS writer...
Foxconn has no obligation to support
They went out of their way and expended extra effort to prevent Linux from working on their system. This moved beyond "not supporting", to "breaking" hardware that should have functioned without any effort at all on foxconns part, using what was probably considerable effort on their part to detect what kernel was booting, then developing a fake ACPI table to show only when it detected linux.
The interesting part is that a year or so back, there was an article here about how Microsoft floated a letter around manufacturers asking how to make ACPI harder for Linux to implement. Everyone asserted that we were just paranoid and the only reason ACPI was hard for Linux was because "Linux developers suck", but now it seems we know.
This is more a case of *Microsoft* not being ACPI compliant. The different versions of Windows have historically broken ACPI in hilariously random and catastrophic ways. You can decompile any BIOS on the market and find a similar table. If you're willing to rule out malicious sabotage on the part of Foxconn (which would be a pretty ballsy move given that they manufacture Intel's reference motherboards), the fault can probably be traced back to their BIOS vendor - either AMI or Award, if memory serves.
"So let me get this straight."
Let's see.
"Some small motherboard manufacturer has flawed ACPI tables and refuses to fix them, therefore they MUST out to sabotage Linux? I feel I've missed a step in your logical deduction here."
You missed not just a step but the entire issue.
You have a manufacturer that provides different ACPI BIOS tables for different operative systems. They even have one explicitly tailored for Linux although the manufacturer says it doesn't support Linux. Then the ACPI BIOS table explicitly tailored for Linux is different from the Windows ones in a way that it is not only non-ACPI-compliant (though the vendor insists in certifying it as such) but even breaks in not a clear manner a Linux install.
Couple it with the fact that Microsoft, a convicted monopoly abuser, is the favoured vendor from current state of affairs and already has a proven track record of getting into agreements with OEMs and manufacturers in order to make competitors look like flawed.
It certainly took money from the vendor to reach such a state of matters. Do you really think the most probably cause to be "general profit-driven apathy"?
"Why the poster persists in sticking with such a POS board with obviously wrong BIOS is beyond me."
1) The point being here not that Foxconn produces "obviously wrong BIOS" but that Foxconn might be producing "maliciously wrong BIOS".
2) Do you really think that, in case there is in fact an unpublished agreement between Microsoft and Foxconn to make Linux look like shit the former won't look for similar agreements with other vendors/manufacturers?
3) Do you really think that, in case there is in fact non-published agreements between Microsoft and other vendors/manufacturers to make Linux look like shit, average "Joe user" (or even me, for that matter) will know the real cause to make an informed decision, as free-market theorists require as a must for a sane economic environment, unless somebody takes the time and effort to vawe the hidden facts?
4) Given the exposed arguments, do you still really think this is really "a tempest in a teacup". I do not think this is a tempest in a teacup but a very serious issue.
The short answer is that some hardware/software interaction is going to be different between various OS versions. Common standards for things like ACPI are supposed to help work around it to some extent. If there's a problem, though, rather than spin new hardware for a bug that comes out on some OS's, it might be more cost effective to code a workaround in BIOS.
If you think about it in terms of doing firmware fixes for option cards to correct problems that can't be completely corrected in drivers, in might make a little more sense. Sometimes those problems will only come out on certain architectures.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
I would almost guarantee that somewhere inside the next computer you build will be Foxconn logo. They are a hugely popular supplier of mobo components like usb or network ports. Not buying Foxconn is definitely an active pass time.
CheShA: Manchester Breakcore / Drill and Bass Yes I'm a s
I just don't understand why there needs to be OS specific stuff in the ACPI. I doubt it's there to fix OS specific problems? (Because that sounds rather silly; wouldn't it make more sense to fix the problems in the OS/drivers?)
Just out of curiosity I disassembled the ACPI DSDT of my laptop mobo (no idea about the manufacturer) and, sure enough, there's some Linux and "Windows 2006" (?) specific code in it. No idea what it does, though, as I had never even heard of ACPI having byte-code in it before.
Is there an industry group that can be contacted in an attempt to force them to remove "ACPI Compliant"? If the original analysis is accurate, clearly they are not ACPI compliant.
Furthermore, since they clearly are breaking ACPI compliance when it detects Linux, and they state ACPI compliance, doesn't this mean they are fraudulently advertising? Seems both the State Attorney General and consumer watchdog groups would like to hear about this.
They went out of their way and expended extra effort to prevent Linux from working on their system.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
I have my doubts that Foxconn would deliberately sabotage a potential customer set--but I have no doubts whatsoever that they could try to implement Linux support, screw it up, then decide they're not going to finish. After all, their Windows support also sucks.
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
This is more a case of *Microsoft* not being ACPI compliant.
We really don't know if this applies here. After all, the BIOS is feed wrong information to Linux, on purpose, which is different that what it provides to Win-OSs. For all we know, it may be providing correct capability information to Windows and simply providing bad information to Linux.
Ultimately, one has to wonder about the motives when a market segment is purposely excluded. No company in their right mind wants to exclude a potential sale unless there is money to be made elsewhere from that exclusion. Or perhaps, as you originally stated, they are nowhere near ACPI compliant and realized early on Linux highlights this fact. Even so - why add additional code to further break things if they are already broken without a monetary return elsewhere to justify the extra effort.
Yeah, except for the part where the motherboard claims to be ACPI compliant when it really isn't. That's sort of false advertising.
Not really. Foxconn claims to only be certified to run Windows. Thus, their claim of ACPI compliance is consistent with their advertisement.
So, while the Linuxan may be offended by this whole concept, Foxconn didn't do anything wrong. Their bottom line is apparently unaffected by linux buyers.
Bearded Dragon
False advertising is a subset of fraud, that is, false advertinsing is fraud, but not all fraud is false advertising.
What we really need is a single authoritative body (or committee) that can certify components for Linux (and the logo). It may sound like a load of crap but that's really what those manufacture wants!
The "certified" badge to a manufacture is very much like carrot on a stick to a horse. That's how they measure up themselves. I personally think that it would be a much easier to do business with a single certification board as well, even if the manufacture had to pay for the testing cost. At the end of the day it makes everyone happy.
Yeah, except for the part where the motherboard claims to be ACPI compliant when it really isn't. That's sort of false advertising.
sort of?
last year I purchased a print server where it stated clearly on the box and the advertisement that it supported usb 1.1 and 2.0. Connected it to my usb 2.0 printer and it didn't work. Couldn't print to the darn thing. Connected a 1.1 and printed just fine.
Eventually the manufacturer admitted they had 'some problems' with 2.0 printers and were kind enough to refund my purchase.
Foxconn should have cut their losses and just said 'oops sorry, my bad' and be done with it.
I guess they can't admit they screwed up and were wrong. Pride will do that.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
If Windows had a functional command shell, it would probably get used quite a bit, too -- it's a fast, efficient way of interacting with the computer, and it provides an easy way to tell people exactly what to do (just cut and paste the following commands...).
But Windows' built-in shell is a piece of shit; it's simply painful to use. (PowerShell is better, but it's not part of most Windows installs.)
That everything has to be done through the GUI in Windows isn't a feature, it's a flaw.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
No no no.
Go read what the guy posted. Its an example of a true community member. This attitude is what spawned the Free Software Movement: vendors should not artificially limit what you CAN do with their shit.
This guy has PROVEN that Foxconn TARGETS speciffically Linux and BREAKS IT.
This is anticompetitive and should be a crime.
NO SIG
"This guy has PROVEN that Foxconn TARGETS speciffically Linux and BREAKS IT."
What he has proven is that Foxconn targets Windows. I'm pretty sure that this mobo doesn't work with OSX, BSD, etc.
The bazaar model doesn't require homogenity, that's the cathedral model.
What scenario would Grandma Maybel need to even know about the registry?
That one is easy for me. I used to do technical Support for Norton Antivirus.
Grandma purchased a Dell computer with 128 megs of RAM running Windows XP. She has 10 things running in the tray and the computer is crawling. She knows just enough to know that viruses are bad. Someone at Staples tells her that the $79.00 copy of Norton Antivirus will fix her computer right up.
Well there are 5 things that will pooch a Norton Install. One of them would be having a nasty virus like Klez on your system. Another is a bad hardware. Another is a corrupted windows installer system. The one that gets granny however is lack of system resources. NAV should only be installed on a system with 70% of system resourcess free, may install on a system with 60% free.
So now Granny calls for support. She can't uninstall. She is going to have to do a manual uninstall. So we email her a document with a procedure to run the computer in safe mode. Delete a bunch of files and folders AND then run regedit and pound a bunch of entries out of the registry
Trust me. I took at least 2 or 3 calls like that a day. The only ones better are the 35 year old moms trying to figure out how they got porn popups on their computer. After all the only people to ever use that computer is her and her 15 year old son.
vi +
Your posts seems to suggest that it was more of a default issue.
Any of the windows items would have worked.
They purposely pointed LINUX to something that would not work. This goes well from bad coding into willful failure.
I just wonder if it is criminal?
And if MS did pay them for this, how many other manufactures have been paid to do similar things? Normally, when MS pulls something like this, there is much more going on.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
That would explain the problems I had booting Knoppix, and later Ubuntu live, on some HP machines (my dad's desktop, my friend's laptop).
Somewhat embarrassing to say, "Watch this!" and stick in a Linux live CD and have it hang. I never imagined it would be because some MoBo maker specifically detecting for Linux and then sending it down the garbage chute.
I'm unlikely to buy a motherboard by itself, but if I buy a desktop or laptop, what other brand name products are FoxConn's mobo's hiding inside?
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]