5 ms·

Libreboot 20221214

91 points by nixcraft 4y ago

charcircuit 4y ago
From what I can tell this is an alternate motherboard firmware for retro computers. The website doesn't really explain any new features you get by using this over the manufacter provided firmware. It says that it's more secure, but I don't see motherboard vulnerabilities as being a big problem in computing. >New boards, x86 >ASUS p2b_ls/p3b_f Came out 1998 and 1999 >lenovo/t430 2012 >lenovo/x230 / lenovo/x230edp 2012 >lenovo/t440p 2013 >lenovo/w541 2015 >lenovo/x220 2011 >lenovo/t420 2011
- IntelMiner 4y ago
  Libreboot is a fork of Coreboot, an open source system firmware/BIOS replacement. You are most likely to find it in Google's "Chromebooks" and other devices as Google hired most of the dev team behind the software Libreboot differs in that it refuses to include things such as CPU microcode. Because the FSF has an absolutely asinine definition of "free software" wherein any code that can be modified or updated is non-free, but if it comes from an untouchable ROM chip they can pretend it's still "free"
  - snvzz 4y ago
    >if it comes from an untouchable ROM chip If it does, then it is hardware. >they can pretend it's still "free" Or rather, not software, thus out of scope.
    - notpushkin 4y ago
      This never really made any sense to me. If I build a PC with Windows installed on a read-only flash drive, can I advertise it as running 100% free software?
      - anikom15 4y ago
        Does that mean Super Mario Bros. was free software until it was released on VC?
  - ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
    > Because the FSF has an absolutely asinine definition of "free software" wherein any code that can be modified or updated is non-free, but if it comes from an untouchable ROM chip they can pretend it's still "free" So mask ROM or OTP ROM are okay, but EPROM/EEPROM/flash are not?
    - ahartmetz 4y ago
      Exactly. It is counterintuitive, but they have to draw the line somewhere, and then such things happen. No way around it without making up some rather arbitrary new definitions, with all that problems(1) that that brings. Well, actually. The distinction between hardware (here: basically 3D-printed VHDL et al) and software is already such an arbitrary definition. (1) like manufacturers tweaking details to fall under the desired definition, legal arguments about the definitions, etc...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - zajio1am 4y ago
      No, distribution of non-free firmware is not ok, while interacting with firmware that is already there (e.g. from ROM or EEPROM) is okay.
  - LukeShu 4y ago
    > Libreboot is a fork of Coreboot They've always called themselves a "Coreboot distro", not a fork. From the homepage: "In the same way that Debian is a GNU+Linux distribution, libreboot is a coreboot distribution."[0] That was a lot bigger deal when libreboot first started, because at the time Coreboot wasn't doing their own releases, so doing release engineering and such around Coreboot was a lot more of a value-add. > Libreboot … refuses to include things such as CPU microcode. That is false since the libreboot+osboot merger. Osboot was a fork of libreboot that had a more lax binary blob policy; they merged back together last month[1], taking osboot's more lax policy[2], which does block out some binary blobs from upstream Coreboot, but allows important blobs such as CPU microcode. > Because the FSF I'd be hesitant to say that libreboot does anything because of the FSF; libreboot and the FSF have had a... tumultuous relationship, for both technical/policy reasons, and personal reasons. Libreboot's policy page[2] has a big section about disagreements with the FSF's policy. It's more fair to say that libreboot does things because of Leah Rowe's position on things, which will tend to align with the position of FSF supporters, but not necessarily. [0]: https://libreboot.org/ https://libreboot.org/ [1]: https://libreboot.org/news/merge.html https://libreboot.org/news/merge.html [2]: https://libreboot.org/news/policy.html https://libreboot.org/news/policy.html
    - pgeorgi 4y ago
      > because at the time Coreboot wasn't doing their own releases, so doing release engineering and such around Coreboot was a lot more of a value-add. Distributions can still offer value through release engineering steps that coreboot skips: https://doc.coreboot.org/releases/checklist.html#purpose-of-coreboot-releases https://doc.coreboot.org/releases/checklist.html#purpose-of-... says about releases: "Our releases aren’t primarily a vehicle for code that is stable across all boards ... Instead, the releases are regular breakpoints ..." Stable libreboot releases, MrChromebox's releases (over at mrchromebox.tech), vendor releases (Chromebooks, System76, Purism, Starlabs, ...) and so on are useful because they provide more rigorous testing for the subset of devices they actively support. Unless you're a developer and/or have tools to recover from a bad flash, these releases are more likely to get you a useful firmware image compared to coreboot.org releases. (That doesn't mean we're not doing _any_ testing before releasing on coreboot.org, but it's somewhat stochastic: whatever the release team has tested themselves or got reports on is good, everything else is of unknown quality.)
  - zajio1am 4y ago
    > Because the FSF has an absolutely asinine definition of "free software" wherein any code that can be modified or updated is non-free, but if it comes from an untouchable ROM chip they can pretend it's still "free" That is gross misrepresentation of their position. It is more like if a project is claiming to be free software, then it should not have parts that are non-free software (like redistributing firmware). If the firmware is in hardware ROM or EEPROM chip (or just downloaded independently from third source), then then it is not part of such project and therefore out of scope (i.e. somebody else's problem).
- intelVISA 4y ago
  The benefit is you avoid manufacter provided firmware.
- AstixAndBelix 4y ago
  Wow, is a quad core i7 processor really retro in your opinion?
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    i7 is a series. A quad core i7 from 2022 isn't retro. One from a decade ago yeah.
    - AstixAndBelix 4y ago
      A quad core i7 from a decade ago has comparable performance with a modern one. Calling it retro when it's at most 1/3 as powerful seems very out of place
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  As I type this on one of my main computers, a machine built in 2011, I have to question your definition of "retro"; I appreciate that it's a sliding scale, but I think I would stick with "old" for anything x86_64 and up. And your list goes to 2015; do you really think 7 years old is "retro"?
b1n 4y ago
Congratulations on this release! The people involved are doing important and thankless work.
dark-star 4y ago
For a second there I thought that this was a new library that allowed applications to reboot the machine they're running on... as in "LibReboot", not "LibreBoot"
- Aardwolf 4y ago
  I never read the name that way, but now I can't unsee it ever!
smcn 4y ago
I have only been aware of Libreboot because of the controversy surrounding Leah years ago. Always meant to give it a shot. Has anyone here used it? If so, how is/was it?
- LukeShu 4y ago
  I use it on all my computers that are supported. But on the laptop side, that means I haven't been using it for a while, since most recent supported laptop is from 2013, and work-provided laptops have spoiled me in to liking having more modern hardware. It's great. Things I like: faster boots than any stock BIOS I've ever encountered; being able to dive in to the source of what I'm running (I'm one of those FSF-type Free Software nutjobs); being able to do fancy things like LUKS encryption all the way down to the BIOS.
  - smcn 4y ago
    Thanks, I appreciate that a lot! The LUKS encryption is a massive selling point to me. I've been considering getting an old X220 as a travel laptop and luckily that appears to be supported.
opan 4y ago
>The last Libreboot release, version 20220710, was released on 10 July in 2022. This new release, Libreboot 20221214, is released today on December 14th, 2022. This is intended to be a testing release. This paragraph goes from YMD to DMY to MDY... I don't see why hyphenating the date from the release version wasn't good enough.
guilhas 4y ago
Libreboot changed their definition to include CPU microcode updates. So some people would argue not they're "libre" anymore, or no different from coreboot. Also some people consider it unavoidable, as Debian also folded recently Also they stopped supporting the most capable boards Asus KGPE and KCMA
- justaj 4y ago
  So is the only option for Asus KGPE and KCMA now Coreboot?
  - guilhas 4y ago
    You can still flash previous Libreboot releases There are these guys that made some updates to coreboot https://docs.dasharo.com/variants/asus_kgpe_d16/releases/ https://docs.dasharo.com/variants/asus_kgpe_d16/releases/
egberts1 4y ago
Still waiting for complete replacement of HP and Dell PC BIOS.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  Are you contributing money, hardware, or code, or just sitting by waiting for it to materialize one day?

Libreboot 20221214

91 points by nixcraft 4y ago

From what I can tell this is an alternate motherboard firmware for retro computers. The website doesn't really explain any new features you get by using this over the manufacter provided firmware. It says that it's more secure, but I don't see motherboard vulnerabilities as being a big problem in computing. >New boards, x86 >ASUS p2b_ls/p3b_f Came out 1998 and 1999 >lenovo/t430 2012 >lenovo/x230 / lenovo/x230edp 2012 >lenovo/t440p 2013 >lenovo/w541 2015 >lenovo/x220 2011 >lenovo/t420 2011

IntelMiner 4y ago
Libreboot is a fork of Coreboot, an open source system firmware/BIOS replacement. You are most likely to find it in Google's "Chromebooks" and other devices as Google hired most of the dev team behind the software Libreboot differs in that it refuses to include things such as CPU microcode. Because the FSF has an absolutely asinine definition of "free software" wherein any code that can be modified or updated is non-free, but if it comes from an untouchable ROM chip they can pretend it's still "free"
- snvzz 4y ago
  >if it comes from an untouchable ROM chip If it does, then it is hardware. >they can pretend it's still "free" Or rather, not software, thus out of scope.
  - notpushkin 4y ago
    This never really made any sense to me. If I build a PC with Windows installed on a read-only flash drive, can I advertise it as running 100% free software?
    - anikom15 4y ago
      Does that mean Super Mario Bros. was free software until it was released on VC?
- ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
  > Because the FSF has an absolutely asinine definition of "free software" wherein any code that can be modified or updated is non-free, but if it comes from an untouchable ROM chip they can pretend it's still "free" So mask ROM or OTP ROM are okay, but EPROM/EEPROM/flash are not?
  - ahartmetz 4y ago
    Exactly. It is counterintuitive, but they have to draw the line somewhere, and then such things happen. No way around it without making up some rather arbitrary new definitions, with all that problems(1) that that brings. Well, actually. The distinction between hardware (here: basically 3D-printed VHDL et al) and software is already such an arbitrary definition. (1) like manufacturers tweaking details to fall under the desired definition, legal arguments about the definitions, etc...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - zajio1am 4y ago
    No, distribution of non-free firmware is not ok, while interacting with firmware that is already there (e.g. from ROM or EEPROM) is okay.
- LukeShu 4y ago
  > Libreboot is a fork of Coreboot They've always called themselves a "Coreboot distro", not a fork. From the homepage: "In the same way that Debian is a GNU+Linux distribution, libreboot is a coreboot distribution."[0] That was a lot bigger deal when libreboot first started, because at the time Coreboot wasn't doing their own releases, so doing release engineering and such around Coreboot was a lot more of a value-add. > Libreboot … refuses to include things such as CPU microcode. That is false since the libreboot+osboot merger. Osboot was a fork of libreboot that had a more lax binary blob policy; they merged back together last month[1], taking osboot's more lax policy[2], which does block out some binary blobs from upstream Coreboot, but allows important blobs such as CPU microcode. > Because the FSF I'd be hesitant to say that libreboot does anything because of the FSF; libreboot and the FSF have had a... tumultuous relationship, for both technical/policy reasons, and personal reasons. Libreboot's policy page[2] has a big section about disagreements with the FSF's policy. It's more fair to say that libreboot does things because of Leah Rowe's position on things, which will tend to align with the position of FSF supporters, but not necessarily. [0]: https://libreboot.org/ https://libreboot.org/ [1]: https://libreboot.org/news/merge.html https://libreboot.org/news/merge.html [2]: https://libreboot.org/news/policy.html https://libreboot.org/news/policy.html
  - pgeorgi 4y ago
    > because at the time Coreboot wasn't doing their own releases, so doing release engineering and such around Coreboot was a lot more of a value-add. Distributions can still offer value through release engineering steps that coreboot skips: https://doc.coreboot.org/releases/checklist.html#purpose-of-coreboot-releases https://doc.coreboot.org/releases/checklist.html#purpose-of-... says about releases: "Our releases aren’t primarily a vehicle for code that is stable across all boards ... Instead, the releases are regular breakpoints ..." Stable libreboot releases, MrChromebox's releases (over at mrchromebox.tech), vendor releases (Chromebooks, System76, Purism, Starlabs, ...) and so on are useful because they provide more rigorous testing for the subset of devices they actively support. Unless you're a developer and/or have tools to recover from a bad flash, these releases are more likely to get you a useful firmware image compared to coreboot.org releases. (That doesn't mean we're not doing _any_ testing before releasing on coreboot.org, but it's somewhat stochastic: whatever the release team has tested themselves or got reports on is good, everything else is of unknown quality.)
- zajio1am 4y ago
  > Because the FSF has an absolutely asinine definition of "free software" wherein any code that can be modified or updated is non-free, but if it comes from an untouchable ROM chip they can pretend it's still "free" That is gross misrepresentation of their position. It is more like if a project is claiming to be free software, then it should not have parts that are non-free software (like redistributing firmware). If the firmware is in hardware ROM or EEPROM chip (or just downloaded independently from third source), then then it is not part of such project and therefore out of scope (i.e. somebody else's problem).
intelVISA 4y ago
The benefit is you avoid manufacter provided firmware.
AstixAndBelix 4y ago
Wow, is a quad core i7 processor really retro in your opinion?
- charcircuit 4y ago
  i7 is a series. A quad core i7 from 2022 isn't retro. One from a decade ago yeah.
  - AstixAndBelix 4y ago
    A quad core i7 from a decade ago has comparable performance with a modern one. Calling it retro when it's at most 1/3 as powerful seems very out of place
yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
As I type this on one of my main computers, a machine built in 2011, I have to question your definition of "retro"; I appreciate that it's a sliding scale, but I think I would stick with "old" for anything x86_64 and up. And your list goes to 2015; do you really think 7 years old is "retro"?

b1n 4y ago

Congratulations on this release! The people involved are doing important and thankless work.

dark-star 4y ago

For a second there I thought that this was a new library that allowed applications to reboot the machine they're running on... as in "LibReboot", not "LibreBoot"

Aardwolf 4y ago
I never read the name that way, but now I can't unsee it ever!

smcn 4y ago

I have only been aware of Libreboot because of the controversy surrounding Leah years ago. Always meant to give it a shot. Has anyone here used it? If so, how is/was it?

LukeShu 4y ago
I use it on all my computers that are supported. But on the laptop side, that means I haven't been using it for a while, since most recent supported laptop is from 2013, and work-provided laptops have spoiled me in to liking having more modern hardware. It's great. Things I like: faster boots than any stock BIOS I've ever encountered; being able to dive in to the source of what I'm running (I'm one of those FSF-type Free Software nutjobs); being able to do fancy things like LUKS encryption all the way down to the BIOS.
- smcn 4y ago
  Thanks, I appreciate that a lot! The LUKS encryption is a massive selling point to me. I've been considering getting an old X220 as a travel laptop and luckily that appears to be supported.

opan 4y ago

>The last Libreboot release, version 20220710, was released on 10 July in 2022. This new release, Libreboot 20221214, is released today on December 14th, 2022. This is intended to be a testing release. This paragraph goes from YMD to DMY to MDY... I don't see why hyphenating the date from the release version wasn't good enough.

guilhas 4y ago

Libreboot changed their definition to include CPU microcode updates. So some people would argue not they're "libre" anymore, or no different from coreboot. Also some people consider it unavoidable, as Debian also folded recently Also they stopped supporting the most capable boards Asus KGPE and KCMA

justaj 4y ago
So is the only option for Asus KGPE and KCMA now Coreboot?
- guilhas 4y ago
  You can still flash previous Libreboot releases There are these guys that made some updates to coreboot https://docs.dasharo.com/variants/asus_kgpe_d16/releases/ https://docs.dasharo.com/variants/asus_kgpe_d16/releases/

egberts1 4y ago

Still waiting for complete replacement of HP and Dell PC BIOS.

yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
Are you contributing money, hardware, or code, or just sitting by waiting for it to materialize one day?