3 ms·

I don't see how you can say a specification is a mess. Particularly since it (and openfirmware) tend to implement far more of what is required to boot a "generi

I don't see how you can say a specification is a mess. Particularly since it (and openfirmware) tend to implement far more of what is required to boot a "generic" OS than any of the firmware projects you mention. Projects that are all mostly linux bootloaders. Further, there is an open source mostly complete UEFI (tianocore) implementation. Some people dislike tianocore for mostly religious reasons (it has 2 character tabs, and an odd build system), but those reasons actually have nothing to do with base UEFI. Finally, UEFI as the OS interface is actually being embraced by u-boot and coreboot as the standard OS loader. Thats because they have realized that the services provided by UEFI actually do solve many of the problem users of uboot/etc systems experience. For one, it standardizes the update process for the actual firmware, as well as providing services/controls for managing the OS boot process following update/etc. It also has interfaces for plug in cards (PCIe option roms) and many other features that turn out to be critical to building a generic computing device.

nickik 8y ago
> I don't see how you can say a specification is a mess. A specification can absolutly be a mess. Over-complicated for what is needed 90% of the time and in the other cases its also not optimal. > Further, there is an open source mostly complete UEFI (tianocore) implementation. Tinocore is not really complete for what you actually need and most venders are so far down stream that the advantages of real open source don't apply. > Thats because they have realized that the services provided by UEFI actually do solve many of the problem users of uboot/etc systems experience. I understand that. But there is a reason why Facebook, Google and other providers move away from UEFI. > For one, it standardizes the update process for the actual firmware, as well as providing services/controls for managing the OS boot process following update/etc. It also has interfaces for plug in cards (PCIe option roms) and many other features that turn out to be critical to building a generic computing device. The way the update process is implemented is incredibly sub-optimal and I have heard people from Intel agree that it is so. The problem is that it creates and unnecessary parallel universe that is far more insecure, far harder to understand and with way worse tooling. Check out this talk by one of the people who wrote UEFI and he admits many of the issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XDYORK2z_M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XDYORK2z_M Then check out this by one of the Linuxboot people going into many of the existing problems from his perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyZfS00LZ70 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyZfS00LZ70
- StillBored 8y ago
  Google and facebook are about the opposite of who you should be listening to for advice on general purpose systems. Their machines are basically embedded servers, and exist in a very strict environment with lots of engineering oversight. Its almost the exact definition of a mono-culture. And google is the mother of android, the very definition of huge mess. You need look no further than the handsets being abandoned after a year because its basically impossible to actually maintain without having a staff of dozens of engineers just to keep a platform working. UEFI, is a specification designed to allow a machine to boot and be managed by a multitude of OS's. That means, yes it may be a bit over complicated in places but those over-complications tend to serve a purpose (or did). I don't think anyone imagines that UEFI is perfect, its not, but tossing out uboot or whatever as an alternative is extremely myopic, as uboot doesn't really even provide enough firmware services for linux in its current state much less windows, or some future OS not yet thought off. That is the point with UEFI, to attempt to fill the gaps in what is possible with a given platform without creating a wild west of incompatible formats and hacky solutions for every platform (which is the current state of uboot/DT despite nearly a decade of work).
  - nickik 8y ago
    > Google and facebook are about the opposite of who you should be listening to for advice on general purpose systems. Their machines are basically embedded servers, and exist in a very strict environment with lots of engineering oversight. They have so many servers and different configuration needs that they need to boot their servers reliably, security, with integrity and they need to boot a wide variety of different systems. > UEFI, is You didn't seem to watch any of the sources that I provided. I'm not making an argument for uboot. The systems that I recommend as better the UEFI can do everything UEFI can do and actually do much more and are much more flexible, not to mention far more secure. > That is the point with UEFI, to attempt to fill the gaps in what is possible with a given platform without creating a wild west of incompatible formats and hacky solutions for every platform (which is the current state of uboot/DT despite nearly a decade of work). You don't seem to know how actually UEFI works on servers. Each vender uses tons of old unsecure bloated firmware full of different drivers that are very badly maintained and don't get security updates. UEFI is at the point where for a commercial server there are more lines of code then the linux OS you are booting into. Its a total security nightmare and a horrible situation in terms of open source as most of these things are closed source. The UEFI core might be open source but even that is not actually used and tracked upstream, vendors all use their own forks. UEFI is complete separated layer that is its own OS, reinventing the wheel putting a totally insecure ring under your OS.

nickik 8y ago

> I don't see how you can say a specification is a mess. A specification can absolutly be a mess. Over-complicated for what is needed 90% of the time and in the other cases its also not optimal. > Further, there is an open source mostly complete UEFI (tianocore) implementation. Tinocore is not really complete for what you actually need and most venders are so far down stream that the advantages of real open source don't apply. > Thats because they have realized that the services provided by UEFI actually do solve many of the problem users of uboot/etc systems experience. I understand that. But there is a reason why Facebook, Google and other providers move away from UEFI. > For one, it standardizes the update process for the actual firmware, as well as providing services/controls for managing the OS boot process following update/etc. It also has interfaces for plug in cards (PCIe option roms) and many other features that turn out to be critical to building a generic computing device. The way the update process is implemented is incredibly sub-optimal and I have heard people from Intel agree that it is so. The problem is that it creates and unnecessary parallel universe that is far more insecure, far harder to understand and with way worse tooling. Check out this talk by one of the people who wrote UEFI and he admits many of the issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XDYORK2z_M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XDYORK2z_M Then check out this by one of the Linuxboot people going into many of the existing problems from his perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyZfS00LZ70 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyZfS00LZ70

StillBored 8y ago
Google and facebook are about the opposite of who you should be listening to for advice on general purpose systems. Their machines are basically embedded servers, and exist in a very strict environment with lots of engineering oversight. Its almost the exact definition of a mono-culture. And google is the mother of android, the very definition of huge mess. You need look no further than the handsets being abandoned after a year because its basically impossible to actually maintain without having a staff of dozens of engineers just to keep a platform working. UEFI, is a specification designed to allow a machine to boot and be managed by a multitude of OS's. That means, yes it may be a bit over complicated in places but those over-complications tend to serve a purpose (or did). I don't think anyone imagines that UEFI is perfect, its not, but tossing out uboot or whatever as an alternative is extremely myopic, as uboot doesn't really even provide enough firmware services for linux in its current state much less windows, or some future OS not yet thought off. That is the point with UEFI, to attempt to fill the gaps in what is possible with a given platform without creating a wild west of incompatible formats and hacky solutions for every platform (which is the current state of uboot/DT despite nearly a decade of work).
- nickik 8y ago
  > Google and facebook are about the opposite of who you should be listening to for advice on general purpose systems. Their machines are basically embedded servers, and exist in a very strict environment with lots of engineering oversight. They have so many servers and different configuration needs that they need to boot their servers reliably, security, with integrity and they need to boot a wide variety of different systems. > UEFI, is You didn't seem to watch any of the sources that I provided. I'm not making an argument for uboot. The systems that I recommend as better the UEFI can do everything UEFI can do and actually do much more and are much more flexible, not to mention far more secure. > That is the point with UEFI, to attempt to fill the gaps in what is possible with a given platform without creating a wild west of incompatible formats and hacky solutions for every platform (which is the current state of uboot/DT despite nearly a decade of work). You don't seem to know how actually UEFI works on servers. Each vender uses tons of old unsecure bloated firmware full of different drivers that are very badly maintained and don't get security updates. UEFI is at the point where for a commercial server there are more lines of code then the linux OS you are booting into. Its a total security nightmare and a horrible situation in terms of open source as most of these things are closed source. The UEFI core might be open source but even that is not actually used and tracked upstream, vendors all use their own forks. UEFI is complete separated layer that is its own OS, reinventing the wheel putting a totally insecure ring under your OS.