Writing an End to the Bio of BIOS? 511
An anonymous reader writes "Intel and Microsoft are gearing up to move toward the first major overhaul of the innermost workings of the personal computer. The companies will begin promoting a technology specification called EFI (Extensible Firmware Interface) as a new system for starting up a PC's hardware before its operating system begins loading."
OF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not just use Open Firmware?
So? (Score:4, Insightful)
EFI sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
What about AMD and Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course... (Score:4, Insightful)
Big Brother Has You!
Re:EFI sucks (Score:2, Insightful)
Of interest to console makers? (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM, here we come! (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a bad feeling that one day we might have 'consumer-oriented' windows computers which will be cheaper and will only run Windows...
OF (Score:2, Insightful)
What I'd like to see is a more intelligent system. We still have to load the boot manager as a 512 byte chunk from sector 0 of the "first" hard drive for crying out loud! If Intel get this right, we should have intelligence right at the start. Something like GRUB or XOSL running right from ROM would be great. The ability to control hardware properly at boot..
OpenFirmware would be better but it looks like Intel won't be going down that route. We can only hope for the best..
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no mention that this will be tailored to Windows in the article, but MS's hearty endorsement is a suspicious indicator of such. If so, would this simply become a matter of the BIOS not allowing anything but "acceptable" OSes to boot? That's where my nickel gets bet.
Why would I want to start my hardware... (Score:1, Insightful)
Figures. (Score:5, Insightful)
Coming: The Year of the Infected Bios (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine the horror of having to patch a system by swapping out chips. I think I recall some old time viruses that basically screwed up the bios royally, and which were not easily cleanable, to one degree or another.
Remember, this design is supposed to be a feature, not a flaw.
Re:OF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whereas most people used to OpenFirmware know the default interface involves writing things like:
1 1 + dup dup + dup + + base !
Not that there aren't ways around this, obviously. For starters, there's no reason why DEL can't just bring up a GUI (or arrow-keys/ESC/Enter text interface), it doesn't have to bring up a command line. The point though is that OpenFirmware is seen as hard, it has a serious image problem.
Gah! DRM in BIOS? Check please! (Score:2, Insightful)
Heck, older SGI Octanes are going for peanuts (comapared to thier original price) on ebay, and they are mostly upgradeable to current spec. And Apple is over there just drooling for my cash.
There really shouldn't be that much going on in BIOS, that's what the whole B part means, ya know.Re:What about AMD and Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would Intel *not* want another OS to run on an Intel platform? There is no amount of tinfoil that can justify it.
DOS partition = Micro$oft Royalty? (Score:1, Insightful)
EFI == DRM? (Score:2, Insightful)
However, I'm wondering if this is how they will integrate digital rights management that the MPAA and RIAA want soo badly forced on to consumers computers? This could be it. Everyone's computer must authenticate with the Master Server in Redmond. :-)
Beyond that, this just means we'll blue screen faster or on detection of a non-MS operating system.
Personally I find fault with the logic of it's old therefore it's broken.
All main boards & BIOS will be from China, (Score:2, Insightful)
You can see the way it is going now, open source adopted by other (I'm USA) governments (this is good, IMO).
The same will be true of the BIOS chips & even MB chip sets - they (forgin governments) are sharp enough to know it's a bad idea to have your system locked down (or into) something some one else has controll over.
So we buy all our stuff from overseas now, for price reasons. Soon we will be buying from them for freedom reasons (this may NOT bode well for the price we may have to pay in the future).
The day may be coming when we have to smuggle BIOS chips and/or Main Boards into the US, just to try to keep some freedom.
This may not be quite as "tinfoil hat" as it sounds now. Remember no one is looking out for your freedom - that task is up to you.
NewToNix - I lent my sig to a really nice government man, but he never returned it.
This may seem strange at first.. but (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's an inaccurate paraphrase. The concern, and a valid one, IMHO, is that MS will attempt to use this to lock out competition. IOW, the question is whether this is going to be designed to be specifically bad for Linux.
This is PS/2 2.0 (Score:3, Insightful)
No, not PlayStation. "Personal System /2", IBM's attempt in 1985-86 to rewrite the PC Industry Standard Architecture into their own proprietary version. They charged a measely 5% licensing fee (in a market where margins were already in that range).
I predict this will die because:
Oh, and Microsoft is drifting into irrelevance.
Re:OF? (Score:3, Insightful)
I support hobby computing. But I don't fool myself into thinking that what works for us nerds will work for the majority of the population. Most people are better off having Microsoft make their decisions for them. Hell, my PC runs windows...because in the time it would have taken me to get Linux running on it, I could have sanded down two quater panels and replaced a seat.
Trust no one? (Score:1, Insightful)
Now my question is, will we have any opportunity to buy hardware we can trust from independent companies in the future? Hardware that allows full privacy and control over the computer?
I understand there are already some alternatives, like other architectures than Intel's, and other OSes than Windows. But being in the website-design/computer graphics thing, I am (unfortunately) better served with Windows.
I feel concerned about all this but I depend on their stuff, and most "ordinary" PC users probably don't care. So it's easy to impose whatever-ware on that type of user. I am wondering if there's any way to avoid being spied on, to avoid being sued for what I do on my computer, and to keep control of my computer if such "monopolisticaly"-engineered devices become standard.
Re:Well if Microsoft's involved.... (Score:5, Insightful)
What about Sun's PROM (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft Logic (Score:3, Insightful)
If MS did try and bully hardware manufacturers into altering hardware to lock out Open Source systems, I would think that Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake, etc. would all be after them with lawsuits, and if MS tried to get a law passed requiring DRM in the hardware or whatever, I'm guessing there would be at least several thousand letters sent to politicians from Angry Linux Users protesting such a law. And then there are all those companies that use Open Source Software who'd be pissed off if they were forced to switch to MS software just 'cause MS said so. Not to mention the fact that the government itself is starting to switch to Linux.
Seriously folks, we're not just gonna wake up one day and find that all our favorite OS's have been outlawed.
Technology and Control (Score:2, Insightful)
However, it has been obvious enough for the past few years that Microsoft, Intel, Dell et al. are pushing to reformulate the PC to become a "home appliance." Many consumers look forward to this eventuality, as the appliance-computer will focus on ease-of-use. However, these consumers are being hoodwinked. What they don't understand is that the increasing ease-of-use will be bought at the cost of their freedom.
Technological development often follows this pattern. As technologies become mainstream, they are often constrained and stifled. Their possible uses are severely limited not only to suit the "lowest common denominator" of user, but also to reflect the interests of big business and the bureaucracy.
For more on this, see Ursula Franklin's work [stumptuous.com] which is incredibly insightful.
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! (Score:1, Insightful)
Gee, that doesn't sound at all like a security hole, no. Nothing to see here-- move along, move along
(Don't see it my way? Think about it-- the BIOS itself could be the ultimate remote root exploit, accessible whether you're running a virgin, unpatched Windows 98 or a hardened, fully up-to-date OpenBSD. You're not putting that "feature" on PCs anywhere in my company!)
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
An earlier post had a link to a threaded discussion with linux core people, Linus, and a guy named Mark from Intel. He gave a background summary of why they are going down this path but he was obviously speaking to his audience and left out mention of any DRM considerations. I am sure the topic was examined as they were developing this model so I am curious/concerned that there may be more to that story.
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
You forgot the other side of the equation pretty quickly.
Microsoft, the largest software manufacturer in the world, conviced monopolist, and vendor of the OS which runs on over 90% of the desktop computers in the world, could stipulate to Intel that they do not allow 'other' operating systems to run on their chips. Or, that they require a certain technology in the software for the chip to function, which Microsoft conveniently protects using patents and/or DMCA.
Now you see how easy it is. No tin foil required.
Re:A change is really needed (Score:2, Insightful)
Screw MS and Intel. I have not purchased software or hardware from either in almost a decade. We have a free global market on our side, and their products are not necessary. These are just 2 US companies in a global market. Let the sheep enslave themselves. We have options.
Re:Intel would never adopt OF (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I read it is, hardware manufacturers want cheap products, and nobody wants to get locked in to supporting just one system architecture for an expansion card.
With something like openfirmware, apparently you have to have a ROM big enough to contain valid code that can run on both IA-32 and IA-64 and PPC, etc., or you end up with things like PC-only and Mac-only cards, which isn't cheap, either. So as nasty as ACPI has been from an implementation point of view, it seems like it does some stuff that open firmware can't do. Same can be said for EFI. Seems like a hell of a problem to me - damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Now, that said, no arguments about the other fringe benefits Intel gets from pushing the standard.
P.S. To my mind, Linus' post on the issue in the thread seems like something that your average software dude (self included) might come up with. Come up with simple hardware specs that don't need ROM code, and standardize on THAT. I'd kill for that kind of utopia in my line of work. I don't work in PCs, I work in embedded systems. All the hardware guys talk about gaining a competitive edge by locking people into their proprietary hardware via a software interface that they control. Same thing going on here - it's not the software dudes in the industry that need convincing - it's the hardware and business dudes who aren't looking to the future, but to the next product.
Re:What about AMD and Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
That works great in market situations where people have a tiny clue as to what they're buying. The PC industry is, for the most part, clueless from stem to stern.
Joe Schmoe goes to buy a new car. He gets in a Ford Focus and the fast talking lipman tries to sell it. But Joe Schmoe doesn't like it, it's too slow.
The Lipman puts Joe in a Focus SVT. Okay, not as slow, but Joe's not very comfortable.Lipman puts Joe in a Mustang, but that's not comfortable either, so he puts him in a Taurus. The Taurus isn't much Joe's style, but it's not too terribly sluggish and it's comfy, so he takes an SeS. Joe has made an intelligent buying decision by weighing his desires against his wallet and picked a reasonable compromise between all of the things that are important to him. Joe's car will work everywhere, and if someone tries to interfere with that, he'll notice. Joe is reasonably clued about this market.
Now, Joe needs a computer. Joe don't know electronics, so Joe goes to Circuit City and starts looking at computers. Joe knew what "200 hp" meant and even had a reasonable understanding of how the torque came into play in his new Taurus. But, Joe doesn't know how the combination of an "onboard video card" and the processor and the "memory" and the speed of the hard drive all come into play. Joe knows he wants to watch DVDs and he wants to surf for porn. The Lipman in Circuit City tells him that this new Compaq has everything he needs. Joe pretends to know what he's looking at, then buys it because it has a soundcard and a DVD-ROM. Joe doesn't know what DRM is, nobody mentioned it, and since he has a DRM'ed system, he'll almost never notice things not working because it always silently grants him access because he's "trusted". Anything that doesn't work will be written off as "broken".
The geeks, on the other hand, being a horribly underwhelming minority, are screaming bloody murder because they can't access half the sites on the net. Google sucks now and we can no longer listen to mp3 samples or watch movie trailers.
Tens of millions of Joes never know anything about the troubles of a couple hundred thousand geeks. DRM has been slipped into everything because the target market has no clue what it is, nobody tells them, and they don't think to ask.
So yes, it's an open market. But, it's an open market controlled by idiots.
Well, actually, yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
After all, Linux runs on just about EVERY platform out there. From wrist watches to mainframes.
So, if there is something about this solution that RESTRICTS Linux's access, then isn't that sufficient warning that there are problems in this "solution"?
Is it possible to get the benefits proposed by this solution WITHOUT those restrictions?
Most of us do. But each person has a different idea of what is the "best way" to do something. That's why we have KDE and GNOME and all the others. That's why we have all those editors.
You list shorter boot times and better power savings. It appears that these are important to you. It appears that Linux compatibility is less important to you than those.
To others, that is reversed. They view Linux compatibility as more imporant than shorter boot times and better power savings.
Does that make them "wrong"?
You're posting on a pro-Linux site, asking why a solution that restricts Linux isn't popular here. While on a Microsoft-centric site, the response would be different.
It's all ones and zeros. There is no "right" or "wrong". Only design decisions based upon someone's criteria.
Re:Read the EFI specs (Score:1, Insightful)
Doesn't that cost money nowadays? Also wtf is a 100MB needed for? Code at this level has absolutely no business being that bloated.
Machine Boot Speed (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe you're just useing the wrong operating system.. mine does boot up in seconds. And yes, if your entire well thought out argument is "but maybe it'll boot faster (insert sparkly eyes)!" I really don't need a redesign with DRM and driver preloading.. which sounds slower.
Re:No progress for ANYBODY!!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Along with... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been working with EFI based systems for three years now. Nicer than BIOS/MS-DOS for test weenies like me to develop code for.
Have a Happy New Year!
myke
But that wasn't a BIOS problem (Score:2, Insightful)
The Intel reference design motherboard of the day used a software general purpose input/output (GPIO) pin to control if the flash was in read-ony or reprogramming mode. This was a departure from the normal designs of the time, which used a hardware jumper to protect the flash ROM.
At the time, everybody making boards in Taiwan did little more that copy the reference design
Somebody hacked/reverse-engineered/leaked the pin configuration from the Intel reference design. This lead to the virus. The fact the virus worked on so many systems is that the Intel chipset was very popular, hence the reference design got copied a lot.
Now it's much harder to pull this type of virus off. Different motherboard designers use different methods to protect against this. Intel's answer was to combine a hardware jumper with their own proprietary encryption system on their motherboards.
Is this the end of widely usable Linux machines? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are several ways EFI could discourage Linux use:
It's a subtle strategy. It's not going to be impossible to boot Linux, but it looks like it's about to become more difficult.
It will still be possible to build machines that run Linux, and there will be companies that do so and preload Linux. But they'll make up their own distribution, like the Thiz Linux you find at Wal-Mart. End user installation of Linux will decrease. Red Hat's air supply will be cut off.
Once you see the whole strategy, you realize just how clever Microsoft is being about this. It's not so blatant as to provoke screams from the industry, but it's enough to put a big dent in Linux installs.
Re:Microsoft Logic (Score:3, Insightful)
If everyone had your attitude, then I feel confident that day would come to pass.
It's the paranoid and vigilant who will work to protect freedom. The fact that this discussion is taking place should be a warning to MS that we will not take any such lock out attempt lying down. Should it be the case that EFI is not used for lock out purposes, you'll surely say, "See, you were just paranoid". But however it turns out, paranoia is indisputably the safer option.
BTW, anyone have Linux booting on the all-in-one Gateway 610 Media Center desktop that was mentioned in the article? Perhaps that could give us further insight.
Re:Microsoft Logic (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, back in 99 I heard a similiar argument by the vast majority of slashdotters in regards to a new propossed law called the DMCA.
I myself called RMS and the EFF, lunitics and mentioned it here in regards to it. I got modded +4 informitive. My responses were on the line of ya, like they are going to sue innocent software developers who want to watch DVD's or those who bad mouth a company.
Come on get real. The dmca will never be used to cancel free speech.....
Well, I was shocked to find out not only was RMS and the EFF right but it was far far more worse then imagined.
Why can't I watch my own dvd's?
You know what? What would MS and the MPAA do if I wrote a patch for Lilo or grub that uses the ultra secret boot signature? I would get thrown in the federal "slam me in the ass" prison!
I just posted another post mentioning how Linux will be still supported for some time like OS/2 is from many bios's. But still I am extremely cautous.
ALso look at soyo with the ACPI installed by default on some of their motherboards due to a bug. Linux and FreeBSD at the time could not use ACPI properly with it and it caused a major headache. The same could happen if pallidium is on by default so manufactors could avoid headaches with Linux support. I doubt this but its certainly possible.
Why this is dangerous (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if it's not directly an intentional attempt to "kill Linux" (why would the Intel engineers who designed it be interested in that!?), there can be no doubt that Microsoft is trying to do what they can to make sure that the next generation of pre-boot software for PCs will contain whatever is needed to make DRM work.
This will not stop you from running GNU/Linux or some other Free Software OS, but if a significant percentage of computer users ever get hooked on that DRM stuff, it will become hard to convince them to switch to a Free Software OS where they cannot legally access DRM'd content.
Re:Not true ! (i call bullshit) (Score:3, Insightful)
If by "boot" you mean "starts the GUI", then yes.
However you're completely ignoring the fact that even after giving you a UI, XP is still working its guts out trying to finish loading the other "less imperative" system drivers/services/what-have-you.
Yeah, to most "users" it "feels like" it's finished booting, but you know - some OSs have actually finished loading all services and system drivers by the time they load the UI, and the ONLY thing they're loading, are UI specific drivers/services/applications.
And they STILL beat the pants of Windows in a boot-race.
So where is AMD in this? (Score:2, Insightful)
I didn't read the article but I don't see anyone mentioning AMD in this other than that they are not involved in the design of this new BIOS. The question I have is why? Why wouldn't AMD want to be involved? I'm sure if 2 CPU manufacturers are involved it would help calm of the nerves of everyone on /. Maybe Intel and MS kicked AMD out of the discussion. It's hard to say. Maybe we should tell AMD to get involved?