5 ms·

I don't understand why the author seems against UEFI in general. I can understand the concerns with Secure Boot, but that's only part of the spec. Am I missing

I don't understand why the author seems against UEFI in general. I can understand the concerns with Secure Boot, but that's only part of the spec. Am I missing something?

wmf 14y ago
Clearly the author knows nothing about UEFI other than it has secure boot.
kephra 14y ago
You might want to watch Cory Doctorow and read John Walker, to understand that the current UEFI implementation is just a first shot of the coming war on general computation. And I think we have to fight them early, before its to late.
- jcoder 14y ago
  Parent asked why you are against it in general.
sp332 14y ago
UEFI is cool. The page is about UEFI Secure Boot.
- kephra 14y ago
  Thanks for pointing this out. I clarified the title and text about this.
rwmj 14y ago
I'm not convinced that putting most of an OS into the bootloader is a good idea. Particularly when that OS is closed source and written by the same geniuses that write BIOSes.
- lgeek 14y ago
  > Particularly when that OS is closed source Not exactly: http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/tianocore/index.php?title=EDK2 http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/tianocore/index.php?ti...
  - rwmj 14y ago
    (a) TianoCore is only a small part of the code (the clue is in the name "Core") (b) The bits of TianoCore source that I've read are overcomplex and ugly. There's no reason for a bootloader to even have all this stuff. (c) That's not the UEFI implementation I have on one of my servers which AFAIK is completely closed source, and does all sorts of weird stuff when I boot. I reverted the machine back to plain BIOS "boot the first sector" booting.
    - lgeek 14y ago
      a) As far as I know, EDK compiles to a working bootloader on supported platforms. b) Not knowing what exactly you've read, I don't know if I'd agree, but anyway, it just implements the UEFI spec. c) As far as I'm aware, all UEFI implementations are built on top of TianoCore. But as it is BSD-licensed, the OEMs don't have any obligation to release their source code. I really think that UEFI is superior to BIOS in every way. It could also be open, except that hardware manufacturers choose to keep it closed. Not allowing user keys for Secure Boot is, also, a decision of Microsoft and manufacturers, not a problem with UEFI itself.
      - pgeorgi 14y ago
        "supported platforms" being a couple of emulators. That is, without any need to do hardware initialization. Tianocore "just implements" the UEFI spec, but that's what is overcomplex and ugly. Also, Tianocore picks the ugliest possible way to implement things (or at least, they really try to).

I don't understand why the author seems against UEFI in general. I can understand the concerns with Secure Boot, but that's only part of the spec. Am I missing something?

wmf 14y ago

Clearly the author knows nothing about UEFI other than it has secure boot.

kephra 14y ago

You might want to watch Cory Doctorow and read John Walker, to understand that the current UEFI implementation is just a first shot of the coming war on general computation. And I think we have to fight them early, before its to late.

jcoder 14y ago
Parent asked why you are against it in general.

sp332 14y ago

UEFI is cool. The page is about UEFI Secure Boot.

kephra 14y ago
Thanks for pointing this out. I clarified the title and text about this.

rwmj 14y ago

I'm not convinced that putting most of an OS into the bootloader is a good idea. Particularly when that OS is closed source and written by the same geniuses that write BIOSes.

lgeek 14y ago
> Particularly when that OS is closed source Not exactly: http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/tianocore/index.php?title=EDK2 http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/tianocore/index.php?ti...
- rwmj 14y ago
  (a) TianoCore is only a small part of the code (the clue is in the name "Core") (b) The bits of TianoCore source that I've read are overcomplex and ugly. There's no reason for a bootloader to even have all this stuff. (c) That's not the UEFI implementation I have on one of my servers which AFAIK is completely closed source, and does all sorts of weird stuff when I boot. I reverted the machine back to plain BIOS "boot the first sector" booting.
  - lgeek 14y ago
    a) As far as I know, EDK compiles to a working bootloader on supported platforms. b) Not knowing what exactly you've read, I don't know if I'd agree, but anyway, it just implements the UEFI spec. c) As far as I'm aware, all UEFI implementations are built on top of TianoCore. But as it is BSD-licensed, the OEMs don't have any obligation to release their source code. I really think that UEFI is superior to BIOS in every way. It could also be open, except that hardware manufacturers choose to keep it closed. Not allowing user keys for Secure Boot is, also, a decision of Microsoft and manufacturers, not a problem with UEFI itself.
    - pgeorgi 14y ago
      "supported platforms" being a couple of emulators. That is, without any need to do hardware initialization. Tianocore "just implements" the UEFI spec, but that's what is overcomplex and ugly. Also, Tianocore picks the ugliest possible way to implement things (or at least, they really try to).