4 ms·

Foxconn deliberately sabotaging their BIOS to destroy Linux ACPI

24 points by nickb 18y ago

jm4 18y ago
This is a very informative thread for anyone having ACPI problems with a Foxconn board, but it's a stretch to say they've gone out of their way to deliberately sabotage their own product in order to inconvenience the tiny percentage of their own customers who choose to use Linux. More likely, this is simply incompetence. I've been using Linux for almost 10 years so I'm very familiar with this sort of experience and understand this guy's frustration completely. However, he is jumping to a lot of conclusions based on very little information. Before even asking for help he sent off a complaint to the FTC. Foxconn's support tried to work with him after that to fix his problem and he acted like a total jerk. With these chicken little types of articles and forums threads being plastered all over every social news site it's no wonder a lot of hardware vendors don't want to officially support Linux. When something doesn't work people always assume the worst and they get burned for it. The more likely scenario is that many of these companies don't have enough Linux experience to ensure the same kind of quality they can with something as familiar as Windows.
- ajross 18y ago
  I don't see where Foxconn "tried to work with him", frankly. They asked one question (which completely missed the point: removing RAM doesn't tell you anything about ACPI behavior) and then punted with "we don't support linux". I don't know about you, but that's not the support that I want from my hardware vendors. I mean, sure, the guy might be a paranoid jerk. But Foxconn is hardly blameless here.
  - jm4 18y ago
    Of course they're not blameless. They're just another crappy vendor that, at best, puts a half effort into supporting Linux. Even cursory research probably would have revealed this before the guy purchased the hardware. The first clue that a little research might be necessary is that Foxconn doesn't even claim to support Linux. The point I was trying to make is this is about the worst way to go about solving a problem like this. Assuming, and then treating people as if they're out to get you is going to get this guy and the Linux community exactly nowhere. What do we know? Maybe Foxconn made a genuine attempt at providing some unofficial Linux support and just screwed up. Dealing with them as if they're part of some conspiracy to destroy Linux is not only downright foolish but really hurts the cause. If all a company is going to get is grief from a bunch of rabid bloggers, who can blame them for falling back on the "we don't support linux" excuse? The simple solution is to let them know in a polite and respectful way that you're having a problem with the hardware. They can choose to fix it or not and you can choose to keep buying their products or not.
c0un7d0wn 18y ago
http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03020.pdf http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/...
gm 18y ago
So you are using a motherboard under conditions that they state it's not certified for... Where's the news here? Is this just a pissing match gone bad? "I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a copy of Vista just to get the crashing caused by Foxconn's BIOS to stop, I am not going to be terrorized." Isn't this whole thing the result of bad research before purchase? About the only thing interesting about this is if the guy gets sued under DMCA for disassembling the BIOS of the motherboard.
- LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
  The point is that the motherboard was advertised as being ACPI compliant. It is not. In fact, it checks specifically for Linux ands hands back ACPI data which crashes the machine. I'm not certain what the potential anti-trust implications are.
  - gm 18y ago
    But it's still not Linux certified. About the DMCA, yes it sucks, and yes, it would be irrational to sue because of that, that's why it would be interesting. Anyway, not that I am hoping for that. Stupid laws should go away.
    - ajross 18y ago
      I'm not following your logic. ACPI is a published, open standard. Foxconn doesn't need to do anything for "linux" or "windows" specifically. They just put the tables in memory and hand them to the OS to use. But they aren't. They're specifically testing for OS versions and handing back different (and, in this case, broken) data to "linux" software. At best, that's horribly broken and a reason to avoid Foxconn hardware. Excusing it with this "Certification(tm)" canard is just spin, and you appear to have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.
      - gm 18y ago
        Well, you guys can mod me down all you want, but the fact remains, they said the motherboard itself is not certified for Linux, so putting Linux on it is a gamble, regardless of the ACPI standard. "Run an O/S we support, and tell us if the motherboard still does not work": Pretty standard response when you try to do something unsupported and then run into trouble. There's no manufacturer that's going to tell you otherwise. Try and complain to Intel about overclocking problems with their motherboards: They will first say "turn off the overclocking and tell me if it does not work still. Oh, and you have just voided your warranty." Just switch brands already. I have my own brand that I like for MBs exactly because I have never had to put up with this cheesy crap from the mfg I use. Foxconn sucks for pulling this crap, so the guy writing the article should stay away from retard brands. Next time, spend the extra $10 or whatever and get a good motherboard. That is the real lesson I see in all of this.
dandelany 18y ago
"it appears they're trying to crash the kernel by locking a region of memory that shouldn't be locked" ...or, they're second-rate programmers who don't test their code very thoroughly. Yes, he is going overboard by claiming "deliberate sabotage." Every hacker wants his 15 minutes of /., and he got his. However, the important overlooked fact here is about halfway down in his post: "I've found separate DSDT tables that the BIOS hands to Linux specifically, changing it to point to the DSDT tables Vista gets fixes all Linux issues with this board." That is, the problem isn't that they screwed up the Linux implementation of their BIOS, it's that they created different rules for Linux to follow when the Vista ones worked just fine. I still have a hard time attributing it to malice, but this is very asinine indeed.
- rit 18y ago
  Interestingly enough though... FoxConn says in the email replies that they DONT SUPPORT Linux. However, they have code specifically written for it. Strange, even if it isn't deliberate sabotage.
  - sysop073 18y ago
    This was what made me thing they did it intentionally. They don't support Linux, and yet they intentionally detect Linux and have special code written for it that doesn't work, when the standard code does work. That's incredibly suspicious, it's like when Hotmail decided to "only support Internet Explorer" by sniffing the user agent string when it actually worked fine on Firefox
kenver 18y ago
To quote wikipedia! "A technical standard is an established norm or requirement. It is usually a formal document that establishes uniform engineering or technical criteria, methods, processes and practices." If they're following the standard they shouldn't need to cater for different OS's - one will do. From the sound of it they've probably copy/pasted chunks of stuff, then edited the windows stuff to make that work and forgot about the linux bits. There's probably no malice involved here but it sounds like a massive bodge, which is totally unprofessional for a commercial product.

24 points by nickb 18y ago

jm4 18y ago

This is a very informative thread for anyone having ACPI problems with a Foxconn board, but it's a stretch to say they've gone out of their way to deliberately sabotage their own product in order to inconvenience the tiny percentage of their own customers who choose to use Linux. More likely, this is simply incompetence. I've been using Linux for almost 10 years so I'm very familiar with this sort of experience and understand this guy's frustration completely. However, he is jumping to a lot of conclusions based on very little information. Before even asking for help he sent off a complaint to the FTC. Foxconn's support tried to work with him after that to fix his problem and he acted like a total jerk. With these chicken little types of articles and forums threads being plastered all over every social news site it's no wonder a lot of hardware vendors don't want to officially support Linux. When something doesn't work people always assume the worst and they get burned for it. The more likely scenario is that many of these companies don't have enough Linux experience to ensure the same kind of quality they can with something as familiar as Windows.

ajross 18y ago
I don't see where Foxconn "tried to work with him", frankly. They asked one question (which completely missed the point: removing RAM doesn't tell you anything about ACPI behavior) and then punted with "we don't support linux". I don't know about you, but that's not the support that I want from my hardware vendors. I mean, sure, the guy might be a paranoid jerk. But Foxconn is hardly blameless here.
- jm4 18y ago
  Of course they're not blameless. They're just another crappy vendor that, at best, puts a half effort into supporting Linux. Even cursory research probably would have revealed this before the guy purchased the hardware. The first clue that a little research might be necessary is that Foxconn doesn't even claim to support Linux. The point I was trying to make is this is about the worst way to go about solving a problem like this. Assuming, and then treating people as if they're out to get you is going to get this guy and the Linux community exactly nowhere. What do we know? Maybe Foxconn made a genuine attempt at providing some unofficial Linux support and just screwed up. Dealing with them as if they're part of some conspiracy to destroy Linux is not only downright foolish but really hurts the cause. If all a company is going to get is grief from a bunch of rabid bloggers, who can blame them for falling back on the "we don't support linux" excuse? The simple solution is to let them know in a polite and respectful way that you're having a problem with the hardware. They can choose to fix it or not and you can choose to keep buying their products or not.

c0un7d0wn 18y ago

http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03020.pdf http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/...

gm 18y ago

So you are using a motherboard under conditions that they state it's not certified for... Where's the news here? Is this just a pissing match gone bad? "I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a copy of Vista just to get the crashing caused by Foxconn's BIOS to stop, I am not going to be terrorized." Isn't this whole thing the result of bad research before purchase? About the only thing interesting about this is if the guy gets sued under DMCA for disassembling the BIOS of the motherboard.

LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
The point is that the motherboard was advertised as being ACPI compliant. It is not. In fact, it checks specifically for Linux ands hands back ACPI data which crashes the machine. I'm not certain what the potential anti-trust implications are.
- gm 18y ago
  But it's still not Linux certified. About the DMCA, yes it sucks, and yes, it would be irrational to sue because of that, that's why it would be interesting. Anyway, not that I am hoping for that. Stupid laws should go away.
  - ajross 18y ago
    I'm not following your logic. ACPI is a published, open standard. Foxconn doesn't need to do anything for "linux" or "windows" specifically. They just put the tables in memory and hand them to the OS to use. But they aren't. They're specifically testing for OS versions and handing back different (and, in this case, broken) data to "linux" software. At best, that's horribly broken and a reason to avoid Foxconn hardware. Excusing it with this "Certification(tm)" canard is just spin, and you appear to have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.
    - gm 18y ago
      Well, you guys can mod me down all you want, but the fact remains, they said the motherboard itself is not certified for Linux, so putting Linux on it is a gamble, regardless of the ACPI standard. "Run an O/S we support, and tell us if the motherboard still does not work": Pretty standard response when you try to do something unsupported and then run into trouble. There's no manufacturer that's going to tell you otherwise. Try and complain to Intel about overclocking problems with their motherboards: They will first say "turn off the overclocking and tell me if it does not work still. Oh, and you have just voided your warranty." Just switch brands already. I have my own brand that I like for MBs exactly because I have never had to put up with this cheesy crap from the mfg I use. Foxconn sucks for pulling this crap, so the guy writing the article should stay away from retard brands. Next time, spend the extra $10 or whatever and get a good motherboard. That is the real lesson I see in all of this.

dandelany 18y ago

"it appears they're trying to crash the kernel by locking a region of memory that shouldn't be locked" ...or, they're second-rate programmers who don't test their code very thoroughly. Yes, he is going overboard by claiming "deliberate sabotage." Every hacker wants his 15 minutes of /., and he got his. However, the important overlooked fact here is about halfway down in his post: "I've found separate DSDT tables that the BIOS hands to Linux specifically, changing it to point to the DSDT tables Vista gets fixes all Linux issues with this board." That is, the problem isn't that they screwed up the Linux implementation of their BIOS, it's that they created different rules for Linux to follow when the Vista ones worked just fine. I still have a hard time attributing it to malice, but this is very asinine indeed.

rit 18y ago
Interestingly enough though... FoxConn says in the email replies that they DONT SUPPORT Linux. However, they have code specifically written for it. Strange, even if it isn't deliberate sabotage.
- sysop073 18y ago
  This was what made me thing they did it intentionally. They don't support Linux, and yet they intentionally detect Linux and have special code written for it that doesn't work, when the standard code does work. That's incredibly suspicious, it's like when Hotmail decided to "only support Internet Explorer" by sniffing the user agent string when it actually worked fine on Firefox

kenver 18y ago

To quote wikipedia! "A technical standard is an established norm or requirement. It is usually a formal document that establishes uniform engineering or technical criteria, methods, processes and practices." If they're following the standard they shouldn't need to cater for different OS's - one will do. From the sound of it they've probably copy/pasted chunks of stuff, then edited the windows stuff to make that work and forgot about the linux bits. There's probably no malice involved here but it sounds like a massive bodge, which is totally unprofessional for a commercial product.