Slashdot Mirror
Foxconn Releases Test BIOS Fixing Linux Crashes
Ryan1984 writes "Only a week after the bad press coverage regarding the Linux-related bugs in a number of motherboards released by Foxconn (which turned out to be the AMI BIOS that several board makers use), Foxconn is the first vendor out with a publicly released test patch that fixes the bulk of the problems, allowing kernel 2.6.26 to run well on the afflicted boards. The remaining issues appear to either be kernel bugs in builds earlier than 2.6.26, issues with the Intel chipset itself, or minor annoyances that Foxconn is still working to resolve. Foxconn representative Heart Zhang has posted on the Ubuntu forums (where the situation began), apologizing for the issues, thanking Foxconn customers and the community at-large for their feedback, and promising that Foxconn will take Linux support and testing seriously, going forward."
"Hey Michael Dell, when are you gonna fix all the disabled HPETs in your laptops? Hell, when I checked for syntax errors in the DSDT code I found 26 of them! And it's only set up to work with different Windows models, nothing else!!! This is unacceptable! ... Hey.... Hey come back here - don't walk away when I'm talking to you!!!!"
Sadly, this is the truth, and if I could make one wish, it would be that computer makers not make their BIOS code such a damn secret. Dell uses a Phoenix BIOS with an unknown compression set up, and they seem to be extremely secretive about it. (Anyone here of the "delldeco" app? That's gone now, because Dell said so.) I'm also glad that EFI is starting to be used in some motherboard manufacturers.
Great news, that's fantastic. I wonder what caused the problem in the first place?
Anyhow, I wonder what happened to that bitter person in Foxconn's tech support? Hopefully he will be taking things more seriously next time as well.
Twinstiq, game news
Quotes from the article:
So not just in this one high publicity case, but on all of their motherboards.
I would say you got what you want here. Time will tell.
I'd say they got this one done too. That's pretty public.
Yes, it's lame that it was broken but now it's fixed. One week is pretty quick for a BIOS revision spin. Maybe it's OK to cut them some slack on this one now.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Informative? That's pure speculation.
More likely, they simply didn't go out of their way to support Linux. When they buy a BIOS it comes with default DSDT tables that of coarse don't work on their specific board, it's very possible that they fixed the Windows tables and ignored the rest.
But of coarse, mere incompetence doesn't make for a good Two Minutes Hate. Linux zealots say they love UNIX, but they really just love to hate Microsoft.
It looks like they licensed a BIOS, and the issue was actually with the BIOS-maker, but they made a fix for it regardless.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Ryan1984's post makes it sound like a generic AMI BIOS problem with Linux ... I don't think this is the case. AMIBIOS runs well on Linux generically (it's on Sun Microsystems servers, the Asus EeePC & EeeBox, which all work with Linux) so this is probably Foxconn introducing a problem when they ported the BIOS to their boards.
Board manufacturers like Foxconn get a development kit from the BIOS manufacturer then port it to their platform. If Foxconn made a BIOS fix for Windows then didn't test it with Linux, this would cause the issue. A similar situation would be if a company made a variation of a Linux distro for their products but broke somethign that worked generically in the original distro.
I think the community response worked great for getting Foxconn to pay attention to Linux. They saw their business & reputation threatened and are trying to fix the problem.
No ... it looks like they got a licensed BIOS development kit, added code that broke Linux and didn't test it. Asus uses AMIBIOS and ships a lot of Linux systems (ever heard of the EeePC?) so I think this is a Foxconn "oops".
His reasoning:
they went to great lengths to sniff for Linux, and hand it it's very own DSDT table, which was not only inappropriate for the hardware on the board, but also failed a checksum test, had multiple compiler warnings, and so on.
The assumption that the mobo manufacturer wrote the DSDT tables is a poor one. They licence a BIOS from someone else, and it comes with sample DSDT tables that probably won't work on the hardware. They then update the Windows tables to work with their board, and ignore the rest.
That scenario is entirely consistent with what was reported on the Ubuntu forums.
They didn't actually do anything dirty, they simply didn't do anything.
The problem is that the ACPI tables are handled according to the operating system installed and when the BIOS checked that linux was in use, it provided a null table. This is not because they purposely broke something, but because they failed to check the bios and follow through on it.
Evidently, and this is mostly my opinion, FoxxCon had no idea how much of a market Linux actually has or appears to have and took others at their word that it is too small to worry about. So they took a stock bios, made a few tweaks for the markets they thought would drive their sales and neglected to do anything about Linux. After they saw the response, they quickly and painstakingly got a workaround out and reversed their position because of the potential market size.
I over simplified the process there, there is a post obove this that goes into a good amount of detail. But it is more that they did nothing then that they did something dirty.
Haha, excellent Dorko. How do you know that ASUS and Gigabyte don't get their boards made by Foxconn?
Lets face it. Microsoft has a history of using underhanded and sometimes illegal tactics to out-compete their competitors. It would come as no surprise if it turned out Microsoft paid them to do this, but to be fair, there's no damning evidence that this has happened or even that it wasn't just a brainfart on the part of quality control.
If you want to see some underhanded tactics, take a look at the way Microsoft treats their vendors, or what Wal-Mart does to get you those low low prices. Both of these things have been verified and criticized. They're no longer speculation.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Looking over the post again, I finally notice that in his letter to the FTC does include a ridiculously speculative claim involving financial incentives to cripple Linux. You're right about the chip on his shoulder.
Having said that, the "news" was (a) at least some Foxconn motherboards having crippled BIOSs that don't work correctly under Linux, (b) Foxconn refusing to resolve the issue, mostly under a claim that ACPI was supported using as proof that Microsoft says it was okay*, and (c) pointless user speculation on what Foxconn's motives are. Including mention of (c) and talking about "come to your own conclusions" is tabloidic/yellow jouralism crap. (a) and (b) were important. I generally try to ignore (c) because (c) seems to be common in most "news" (newspaper, tv, and internet). That's one reason I was pretty blind to it (okay, and I tend to skim through forum posts and articles since lots of them are filled with useless filler). Never the less (a) and (b) were the "real news" to me, and I get the feeling that that's a major reason that it was posted. But thinking about it more, now that I see what you mean, the conspiracy angle might have been another major reason.
*It's funny, in a way, that they'd claim ACPI support, not test on Linux, and then reaffirming their ACPI support by confirming it works on Windows. But, *shrug*. To me that implies incompetence, actually.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Lol... Not allowing unsigned code to run on a device is not closing GPL code down. It is closing the device down and you still get the code. My issues there is the reach and scope of what was being done. If the government of any country does something along the same lines, you would be the first in line crying fowl over the encroachments.
And no, they didn't deliberately break anything if Linux is detected.
Another thing, what I'm defending against is improper accusations being made because of ignorance. Of someone made an untrue claim about you, I would defend you just as vigorously. I think it is more telling of you using the term "corporate masters" then anything I have said. So don't expect me to defend you over true accusations. You reap what you sow and I think there is enough unsubstantiated FUD floating about.