[coreboot] [Fwd: Re: Contact Intel]
duwe at lst.de
Sun May 4 00:36:18 CEST 2008
On Thursday 01 May 2008, Richard M Stallman wrote:
> Some of the points are simply distractions or illogical. For
> BIOS is a part of the reliability and performance promise of the
> Is that true? If so, so what? That is no reason not to let us run
> our own BIOS.
Well, sort of. From my experience, which very likely most on this list can
share, BIOS is used to cover up defects in the hardware. Thus, it's a PR
question, not a technical one.
> Chipset specifications at the level being discussed are
> commonly considered proprietary by all silicon vendors, not just
As Peter has already mentioned, that's a lie^W^Woutdated. Additionally to
Peter's points, the new "gallium" driver for mesa is being developed for a
pure software pipeline and, as the only hardware implementation,...
TADAAA: intel onboard graphics i915.
> However, it is false: some computer models do work with free BIOS.
> Intel compares badly with them. This is one of the statements that
> maybe could be criticized in a published response.
> The open source firmware work that Intel *is* sponsoring could
> lead to a solution where proprietary low-level chipset
> initialization code from silicon vendors is made compatible with
> open source higher-level platform initialization and pre-boot
> As they say, this is not a complete free BIOS, just part of one.
As things look like today, it's a layer _on_top_ of what's currently known as
BIOS. Besides, did they lift the royalties clause on UEFI yet?
(http://www.uefi.org/specs/agreement : "...implementation ... requires a
More information about the coreboot