Slashdot Mirror
Phoenix BIOSOS?
jhfry writes "In an interesting development by an unexpected source, Phoenix Technologies is releasing a Linux-based, virtualization-enabled, BIOS-based OS for computers. They implemented a full Linux distro right on the BIOS chips, and by using integrated virtualization technology, it 'allows PCs and laptops to hot-switch between the main operating system, such as Windows, and the HyperSpace environment.' So, essentially, they are 'trying to create a new market using the ideas of a fast-booting, safe platform that people can work in, but remain outside of Windows.'"
The Geek in me says: "awesome" The Hacker in me says: "jackpot"
Imagine that, a mere 10 years after LinuxBIOS (now CoreBoot) first provided a full linux version on the BIOS (with near-instant booting into the OS of your choice), Phoenix gives us with this remarkable invention (complete with the standard idiotic fawning by Rob Enderle).
Bioii
Anybody want my mod points?
Lately BIOS has become the slowest process of booting.
I hope they won't increase bloat inside BIOS.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
> So is this fundamentally different from Asus putting SplashTop on some of their netbooks and motherboards?
Very different. What Phoenix is doing is pushing Windows into a VM, permanently. The machine boots Linux from the BIOS and loads Windows into a VM container in the background while you have a basic Linux desktop to browse the web, read email, etc. You can flip between Windows and Linux with a hotkey. But Windows stays in the VM. This offers a hope of eventually containing the menace from Redmond. The question is whether Phoenix will want to go there.
Imagine a real firewall dropped between the virtual NIC in Windows and the real one. Even better, just forget the network in Windows for most uses, use the Firefox on the 'other' more safe system that is a hotkey away. Push this tech a bit more and have seamless Windows(tm) windows running rootless on the X side. Now we don't even need to worry about two different displays. Basically, this tech offers the potential to blur the line between Windows and a real Internet ready system in ways impossible to predict. This could erase enough of Windows' defects to keep it viable or it could remove enough of the reasons to run Windows it hurts it. But Pandora's box is open and it will be interesting.
Democrat delenda est
Hyperspace is an extremely fast booting (approx 4 seconds) Linux based mini OS. It is available in two flavors. On PCs without the Intel's VT extensions it is just a fast booting OS, but you can only dual boot it.
On PC's with VT, the bios loads a hypervisor which then boots both Hyperspace, and windows. (It may defer starting windows until hyperspace has loaded). The result is that within for seconds you can begin using the computer, doing things like browsing the web while windows. Once Windows is up, users can instantly switch back and forth.
In theory there should be little reason why other OS could not be used instead of windows, although the system may be installing special drivers in windows to help mitigate some issues.
Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
DOS was a BIOS based OS. It passed a large number of its calls directly to the BIOS. We all know how well that worked out.
That said, I would rather have a read-only, default, fallback, usable OS in the system firmware. You know, something that could be used for:
The PC is one of the few platforms where the hardware is actually useless to the end user without an installed operating system. Reflashable BIOSes further compound the problem by allowing a software command to render the hardware unbootable and unrecoverable (that is, unless you happen to have a FLASH programmer and another computer lying around...). The PC has perhaps the worst architure and implementation of any major platform, and it's about time they did something to fix that.
In fact, with the falling prices of flash, why not just flash a Linux kernel into the BIOS?
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Or this will shoot such issues down.
This idea of putting Linux itself into the BIOS is okay if and only if the chip containing the BIOS is replaceable. In other words, the chip should not be soldered to the board.
You're joking, right? Right????
Because if not, read this then flagellate yourself 20 times with an RS232 cable.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Yes, because no one would ever think to update by flashing. Why would it have to be replaced, again?
Today is red jello day - all workers must eat all of their red jello. Failure to comply will result in five demerits.
What about updating the kernel or compiling in new drivers? Do you have to flash the BIOS every time? Risky.
Virtually? It's called a hypervisor. How do you think any VM works?
I'll forgive your lack of experience on this matter but I have to answer your implication that driver absence is a Linux problem.
There is a problem with manufacturers who decide to keep their hardware specs secret and so make it difficult to have device driver support under Linux. It is true. It is a lot less common, but still true.
But this is not a problem that is exclusive to Linux. There are many devices that are older and will never have support for WindowsXP or Vista or Windows 7. The devices are considered old and outdated by these same manufacturers and do not want people using them any longer and so they don't pay to have people write drivers for more current versions of Windows. It happens. This problem also happens with Mac OS X. Recently, I upgraded my wife's machine to OS X 10.5.x and her Canon scanner does not and will not have drivers for 10.5.x even though 10.4.x and prior are still supported. All I could get were weak apologies from support but there is no intention to change from their position. They recommended that I buy some software from a 3rd party that costs twice what the scanner costs today in stores. (It is pretty weak that they actually display the MacOSX compatible logo on the package and it is no longer completely true...)
My point is that when drivers are not open sourced and/or the hardware specs are not openly available, your hardware is limited by the willingness of the hardware maker to support it. This is true of Windows, Mac OSX and Linux alike. This is NOT a Linux problem. It is a Manufacturer-with-their-heads-up-their-asses problem.
He could boot your OS with a Swiss Army Knife, some duct tape and and old pop top, drawing the electricity needed from a box of old compasses. I guess he's retired from Phoenix by now, though...
The Admin and the Engineer
Not without getting arrested, this is a PC world, ya know.
... but an unlimited number of morons !!!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Stop sounding stupid.
I've tried this with people before, and it never works. Never fear - I have a plan!
sudo Stop sounding stupid.
A driver missing on an OS isn't the OS developers' fault, but it is their problem. There is a difference. They're not responsible for making the drivers, so its not their fault. Users still don't want to use an OS where they can't use their electronics, though, so it is a problem for the OS developers.
The solution to that problem may be intractable in some cases (a manufacturer refuses to divulge drivers under any circumstances, and no-one is willing to put in the effort to reverse engineer). However, Linux has done remarkably well, and things are only getting better driver-side.
But you're right its not a Linux-exclusive problem. My current printer doesn't work with my Mac, and older equipment may not work with newer versions of Windows.
I've tried this with people before, and it never works. Never fear - I have a plan!
sudo Stop sounding stupid.
beav007 is not in sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
DOS was a BIOS based OS. It passed a large number of its calls directly to the BIOS. We all know how well that worked out.
Let's just call this a gross oversimplification and be done with it, shall we?
Why bother having a separate OS when the kernel could fit on the firmware?
For security reasons. Your firmware OS might have exploitable privilege escalation bugs, so you don't want to run untrusted software under it directly, only in a protected virtual machine environment. That virtual machine environment must have its own OS, and that would be a disk-based OS which is easier (and safer) to update in the event that security holes are found. It's preferable if the whole boot environment is as near to possible as read-only, just to reduce the possibility of malicious exploit. It shouldn't even be possible to re-flash the system without physical intervention (such as changing a jumper).
With kernel drivers *in the hardware itself*, one would never have to worry about getting the correct driver, etc...
This is true for the flash-based OS and the built-in hardware, which is why you can boot into a usable system so long as enough of the hardware is integrated on the motherboard. Don't forget plug-in cards and external peripherals, though. There's no avoiding the need for those drivers, in general.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
How many FOSS drivers must I mention before you admit Linux does have a problem?
More specifically: how many FOSS drivers *which are not maintained in the kernel tree* must I list?
1. MTP008 temperature sensor was removed from 2.6 (was in 2.4).
2. Peracomm USB ethernet (stopped working while in kernel tree)
3. DIB0700 (and many, many other) based DVB cards - the manufacturer helped making the driver but it still (after over 3 years, in 8.10) is not up-to-date/maintained in the kernel tree.
4. Numerous Wifi cards some of which partially work and some not.
5. Webcams (gspca).
Need I go on?
6. EeePCs ... most came with Linux, most drivers still do not work even in 8.10.
Nobody claims this is exclusive to Linux, it is just a lot more pronounced in Linux.
My point is that even when drivers are FOSS and the manufacturer has willingness Linux *users* can and do have problems.
I leave it as an exercise to the reader to find out why and who is to blame.
There are many devices that are older and will never have support for Windows XP or Vista or Windows 7. The devices are considered old and outdated...
In almost every case - they are old and outdated -
at least those devices produced for the home and SOHO markets.
I replaced a old HP printer with a wireless multifunction HP printer-scanner-fax with Vista drivers -
and by old I mean that only the parallel port worked with XP.
The new - refurbished - ink jet cost $99 with a one year HP warranty. It lacks only the color LCD for instant photo printing.
This is NOT a Linux problem. It is a Manufacturer-with-their-heads-up-their-asses problem.
There comes a time when the geek needs to let go. To pull the plug.
Open Source is not a panacea.
Someone still has to sit down and make the decision to write and test a new driver for a fast-fading piece of legacy hardware -
and if he says the hell with it, there is not much you can do.
If the manufacturers will release the damn specs the geeks write the drivers for them and those drivers get included with every distribution by default.
While that is an interesting argument, there are a few fundamental problems that bother me:
a) The incentive of manufacturers to release said specifications is low. Regardless of money made on the acquisition of a wider user base (often through more hardware sales), such specifications create issues for intellectual property and often serve as an opportunity for any competing manufacturers to digest a well-prepared buffet of the inner workings of hardware and the software that supports it.
b) The incentive of said 'geek' to actually sit down and not only write but actively maintain said drivers is based on demand and free time. This leads to the parent post "now you see it, now you don't" support syndrome.
c) The incentive of a manufacturer to release quality specifications is next to non-existent. In many cases, only the most determined OSS master-mind is capable of both understanding what are often meant as 'internal use only' documents and actually creating a driver. While I have little doubt such people exist, there is only so much time, sweat, blood, and tears that many people are willing to give for results.
Note that I actively contribute to the open source community and use Linux on a regular basis. That said, I don't believe manufacturers are (entirely) to blame.
There comes a time when the geek needs to let go. To pull the plug.
Which is why our landfills are filling up with e-waste faster than they should be. Great example of attitudes in a disposable society.
I'm all for progress and new technology, but why discard something because it just needs a new set of drivers? The reason why manufacturers can get away with this crap is because people don't get pissed off enough and light up their call enters with complaints.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I had most of this in the 70s. It was called the Tandy Model I, and the entire OS was on a chip. There were never any driver problems because you couldn't install drivers. It was instant on (and by instant I mean faster than the CRT/TV it was connected to).
We've come so far .... :P
Oh, and 4K of RAM ought to be enough for anybody. ;)
Put identity in the browser.
Typically they're old and outdated BECAUSE drivers aren't released, not the other way around. Webcams don't stop working; they just get forced into obsolescence.
What you don't know won't hurt you. 100% secure, let me know how that turns out for you.
I am the lawn!
No no, he said it's "virtually 100% secure", in the same way that I'm virtually a demi-god dwarf thief who destroys his foes by injecting flaming marshmallows up their ass.
which is totally what she said
This brings up an important point. There is plenty of incentive for someone to write a web server, a database manager, an OS kernel or thousands of other generic bits of software. There is almost NO incentive for someone to write a driver for an obsolete device. The former can be a source of consulting and employment. The latter can actually work against you.
I mean, if a hardware manufacturer finds out you like to write device drivers for obsolete hardware, they're not going to be pleased. All those people keeping their old printers will prevent the manufacturer from profiting by making new ones. And if you really get creative by making the hardware do all sorts of new tricks it never did before, they're probably going to look for some excuse to get rid of you.
They want to sell new product, not keep the old stuff going. I know it's wrong to say this, but that's how the world's economy is configured right now.
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!