[coreboot] barbarians at the gates
patrick at georgi-clan.de
Mon Sep 12 21:07:38 CEST 2011
Am Mo 12 Sep 2011 13:06:07 CEST schrieb Peter Schmidt:
> Coreboot is the alternative to UEFI.
It's complementary. UEFI (or what the consumer understands by it)
barely covers hardware initialization, while coreboot doesn't really
concern itself with firmware APIs.
> With Linux there are already problems with UEFI, because the mainboard/UEFI manufacturers do not adhere to the standards. (No link this time, please search yourself.)
That's just the continuation of their inability of reading specs that
they proudly presented to the world with BIOS interfaces. Their main
advantage back then was a lack of a single, unified, formal spec. (But
mjg's rants are amusing to read, yes)
> And since I am the customer, please, let me decide what I pay for.
That plea is best directed towards mainboard vendors.
In the end, I still wonder why such things are discussed on this list.
Preaching to the choir and all that (and creating weird public
perception of what coreboot developer think about technology, as can be
seen elsewhere in this thread).
How about you bring this up with: mainboard vendors, Intel (as UEFI
fanboy #1), Tianocore (providing the user interfacing half of UEFI)?
They are more likely to have any influence on the matter.
More information about the coreboot