3 ms·
Anything that requires binary blobs just to boot seems fishy. You'd think one driver per chipset would be sufficient, and it should be open source. I suppose i
by incompatible 7y ago
Anything that requires binary blobs just to boot seems fishy. You'd think one driver per chipset would be sufficient, and it should be open source.
I suppose in the AMD/Intel world, all these binary blobs are built into UEFI.
- ohazi 7y agoTotally agree! You'd think that vendors would agree too, since it makes it strictly easier for engineers to use their chips and design them into higher value products.
- shawnz 7y agoDoesn't UEFI also support aarch64? Why can't vendors use that?
- gsnedders 7y agoWindows 10 requires UEFI support, so any ARM device that supports Windows 10 uses UEFI.
- solarkraft 7y agoHey, that's wonderful. What I had read before pointed to every device having some weird undocumented mess. But: Is the bootloader even unlockable to install alternative software?
- gsnedders 7y ago> But: Is the bootloader even unlockable to install alternative software? IIRC, MS require the device to support Secure Boot, but whether or not you can disable it or whether you can add other signing keys is undefined (and I have no idea what vendors do). (Originally the requirement was it must be always enabled and only the OEM could add keys, but that has since changed.)
- timthorn 7y agoThere's a port of Ubuntu available. It isn't yet complete but it does boot on Windows on Arm devices. https://github.com/aarch64-laptops/linux https://github.com/aarch64-laptops/linux