Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNU is Not Unix

Stallman Pushes For Free BIOS 419

Posted by simoniker from the freedom dept.
An anonymous reader writes "One key area that Richard Stallman, GNU project founder, hopes to develop is an OSS-based BIOS. But his work has been hindered by PC manufacturers who haven't been receptive to the idea. Stallman told Builder AU that: 'we're looking for companies willing to cooperate with the community in this way.' On challenges facing developers today, Stallman said the worst was the proliferation of laws that explicitly ban free software for certain jobs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stallman Pushes For Free BIOS More

Stallman Pushes For Free BIOS

Comments Filter:

  • The momentum is pushing him away... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TastyWords ( 640141 ) on Thursday July 22, 2004 @03:39AM (#9767911)
    Isn't there a Linux/BIOS project underway?

    Isn't Microsoft looking to create a nasty piece of BIOS (or no BIOS) which would lock down a system beyond the belief of most persons who aren't "well educated" WRT technology; i.e., the people who wouldn't have a need for tinkering with the system. I'm looking to this akin to car manufacturers wanting to sell cars with the hood welded shut?
    • yes micro$oft are creating a lockdown bios called trusted computing for some info on trusted computing read this:- http://www.againsttcpa.com

    • Re:The momentum is pushing him away... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Erpo ( 237853 ) on Thursday July 22, 2004 @03:59AM (#9767981)
      Isn't Microsoft looking to create a nasty piece of BIOS (or no BIOS) which would lock down a system beyond the belief of most persons who aren't "well educated" WRT technology; i.e., the people who wouldn't have a need for tinkering with the system.

      No. Microsoft and others have created a nasty piece of technology including BIOS modifications which, working with other modifications and additions to standard PC hardware, will not only lock users out of performing certain actions but could be used to allow total control over end user machines by Microsoft or the government (or your personal least favorite organization), regardless of how tech-savvy the end user might be.

      Being smart does not make you safe.

      Don't reply about how you can always gain complete control of your own hardware with enough technical knowledge and time. Read Ross Anderson's TCPA FAQ [cam.ac.uk] too see why that still applicable bit of security wisdom isn't sufficient to throw off the yoke of TC. Go here [trustedcomputing.org] for all the technical nitty gritty if you're not still convinced.
      • TCPA, Palladium - whatever you want to call it - is still just a segment of the market. If you don't want it then don't buy it. If nough people make that decision it will flop and that will be the end of it.

        But if tcpa allows those wal-mart "computing devices" to provide their users some basic functionality without ddosing the entire subnet with virus activity, then I'm all for it... as will be most of the joes and janes presently calling tech support every month because their computer caught (yet anothe

      • Actually, I think I am pretty safe from this glorified copy protection bullshit.

        We broke it back in the 80s when it first came out... we're breaking it now, and we'll break it in the future.

        This kind of specification could only work if all hardware conformed to it... which will never happen, for a lot of good reasons. First of all, there is a lot of perfectly good legacy hardware floating around, that has no "copy protection" functionality whatsoever. For example, I have a microphone jack and an old PC. T
        • Don't forget, a lot of semiconductor fabs are located overseas, to avoid harsh environmental regulations here in the U.S. Well, guess what... U.S. law does not apply there.

          True, but if the companies involved wish to sell those products to or withing the US, then the products will have to comply with all the relevant statutes.
        • I am a programmer. I have been studying the Trusted Computing engineering specifications. I am a rabid opponent of Trusted Computing. I have been compiling my own private list of ways to attack/defeat Trusted computing.

          I have written umpteen multipage posts explaining things here on slashdot, but I don't feel like typing a mulit-page post right now. If you want detailed/technical answers about Trusted Computing just ask.

          I just want to point out that many of the things you suggest just won't work. Microsof

  • Bling Bling (Score:4, Interesting)

    by porkface ( 562081 ) on Thursday July 22, 2004 @03:42AM (#9767919) Journal
    Stallman is going to have to find a serious financial hook to lure companies with.

    Hardware vs. Software is starting to be viewed as the last outpost of the fight to save capitalism in the Software industry.

    If he's really serious, he'll find an investor who can't quite break in yet and try to nail down that niche.

    • Re:Bling Bling (Score:2, Insightful)

      by EugeneK ( 50783 )
      Just because software has been commoditized doesn't mean capitalism in software is dead. The profit margins have gone down and will continue to do so but that's simply market capitalism at work.

      • Re:Bling Bling (Score:2, Insightful)

        by grepistan ( 758811 )
        Up until now, market capitalism has always been concerned with physical products. It will be interesting to see how the free market copes with a free product that, once created, can be more or less redistributed endlessly for nothing...
      • > Just because software has been commoditized
        > doesn't mean capitalism in software is dead.
        > The profit margins have gone down and will
        > continue to do so but that's simply market
        > capitalism at work.

        No, the point is that the free market for software is being killed by the slow tilt towards the point where the production of any new piece of software is subject to a veto by existing companies, who can simply deny the information necessary for interoperation.

        We can already have "Hmm, nice sof

    • Stallman is going to have to find a serious financial hook to lure companies with.

      What about this...

      • If you are a hardware manufacturer, you will be locked into paying exhorbent licensing fees and be forced to adhere to standards dictated by a monopoly.
      • If you are a software producer and your software becomes popular, you will have to sell your company or have your software plagerised then upstaged and possibly locked out at the operating system level, and end up being run out of the business.
      • If you g
    • Hardware vs. Software is starting to be viewed as the last outpost of the fight to save capitalism in the Software industry.

      Free Software/Open Source Software is capitalism at its best. Proprietary software relies on a "limited" (almost forever) copying monopoly in their business model. F/OSS instead encourages competition because the source is out there and everyone is in the same position as the original coder. F/OSS DOESN'T remove the money from the IT field. There is much money to make from custom

  • Link has little info about bios (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hobo2k ( 626482 ) on Thursday July 22, 2004 @03:50AM (#9767945) Journal
    Okay, at first I thought the submitter was on crack. The interview has nothing to do with free bios stuff. The only relavent statement is this:
    However, I think that development of a free BIOS is particularly important. The main obstacle is that computer manufacturers have not released all the information necessary to do the work. We are looking for companies willing to cooperate with the community in this way.
    Big deal, of course hardware manufacturers don't like to release the details of the hardware.

    But, the interview is interesting.

    • of course hardware manufacturers don't like to release the details of the hardware.

      There's no "of course" about it. Ten years ago, almost all hardware manufacturers released details of hardware routinely. Back in 1994, I was programming video boards (S3 based, and Targa) using hardware specs provided by the manufacturer. Their reasoning was that providing programming specs resulted in more software being written for their boards, which would result in more sales. Makes sense, doesn't it?

      What has changed i

    • Re:Link has little info about bios (Score:5, Interesting)

      by johannesg ( 664142 ) on Thursday July 22, 2004 @05:25AM (#9768231)
      of course hardware manufacturers don't like to release the details of the hardware.

      Why is that so natural? It used to be, when you bought a computer you got the entire schematic and a complete description of all the hardware registers. Up until the 16-bit generation you could buy that documentation for a small price - I know, I still have my "Amiga Hardware Reference Manual" gathering dust somewhere at home.

      But all of a sudden it is no longer possible. Why?

      I can at least tell you this: it isn't because hardware API's, all of a sudden, have become so unique, so incredibly advanced, that just telling people about register layout would cause vital secrets to escape the company. So having gotten that out of the way, why then?

      It could be argued that it is a hassle actually writing documentation. But this cannot be the problem: the documentation must still exist for those few people who write drivers today. So that isn't it either.

      Then it is possible that some sort of licensing scheme prohibits the companies from actually making the information public. Licensing from whom, I wonder? Who benefits from keeping this information locked up? I won't answer this one, but I bet you can guess...

      • Re:Link has little info about bios (Score:5, Informative)

        by runderwo ( 609077 ) <runderwo.mail@win@org> on Thursday July 22, 2004 @08:09AM (#9768873)
        Patents have become a big problem in recent years. It is much easier to simply not publish your documentation, than the alternative: to publish it (either openly or under NDA), have a competitor catch wind of your design and locate some vague patent they have that seems to cover some aspect of it, and spend years in a costly court battle, only to end up cross-licensing your valuable portfolio just to avoid being sunk by deliberately anti-competitive licensing fees.

        It's only going to get worse from here on out. Ironically, while the patent system was originally designed to encourage publication, it is rife with problems currently which actually encourage secrecy, because that's the only way to avoid being the target of a lawsuit over some vague concept that a competitor happened to hold a patent on. Of course, you will have your own patents on vague concepts, so it's only a matter of who fires first. The hope with the secrecy approach is that nobody fires, because in the end the only winners are the lawyers.

  • As an Australian... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by acceber ( 777067 ) on Thursday July 22, 2004 @03:54AM (#9767963)
    Instead of signing this treaty, Australia should withdraw from the WTO, so Australians can decide their own laws once again.
    As an Australian citizen, the current Australian government has been all over the place in recent times regarding economic and political policies. The current argument is that Australia is being spoon-fed by the US government and are losing out because of this trade agreement. But withdrawing isn't as simple as that as a great many people might think. The political interests between the two countries are too important and the alliance so strong that it could quite possibly have reached a point where Australia is too scared to back away and stand up for itself.

  • OpenBIOS, Open Standard (Score:5, Informative)

    by turgid ( 580780 ) on Thursday July 22, 2004 @03:56AM (#9767971) Journal
    OpenBIOS [openbios.org] is what you want, and unlike LinuxBIOS, it's implementing an Open Standard too, as used by IBM, Apple and Sun : IEEE 1275-1994 or Open Firmware.
  • 1. Publish your mainboard BIOS as Open Source
    2. Wait for people to compile their own BIOS
    3. Charge customers for flashing a working BIOS back on the ROMs.

    Easy, isn't it?

  • What laws? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by john_smith_45678 ( 607592 )
    What laws are proliferating that "explicitly ban free software for certain jobs"?

    • Re:What laws? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Yaa 101 ( 664725 ) on Thursday July 22, 2004 @05:50AM (#9768321) Journal
      RTFA

      • The worst challenge is laws that explicitly ban free software for certain jobs are starting to proliferate. The US is considering a ban on free software to receive digital TV signals. It already has a law that has been interpreted as banning free software to play a DVD. The proposed US-Australia "Free Trade" Agreement would impose some of these prohibitions on Australia.

        Well aren't I glad I RTFA ?

        So this is what is said...
        1 (one) ban being considered
        1 (one) ban on free software playing DVDs - at least, so

        • Software patents? -There are >100,000 software idea patents filed in the USA, if Australia has to broaden the scope of it's patent laws to the scope of the USA's laws, that's 100,000 jobs that free software can't do.

          The digital broadcast flag is another - as mentioned in the article. Anything with a screen larger than 13 inches would be classed as a TV, and only software which can't be fixed/improved will be allowed to read digital TV signals.

          About the DVD example: it's not just DVDs, under the DMCA/E
  • What with all the talk of embedding DRM into the BIOS itself, I'm not surprized Stallman has come out with the idea of a GPL based BIOS. What happens when every single part of the computer must be a pice of 'trusted' software, i.e. restricted software. If this project goes ahead, maybe we'll all have an alternative to what an industry too scared of litigation forces on us.

    Some might consider the FSF and Stallman in paticular, to be too zealous in their pursuit of a totally open system, but given the upsurge in patenting, litigation, copyrght restrictions and DMCA style laws, the computing world is becoming a much harsher place for those who want to do, what they want to do, with their own computers. At the moment we have only operating systems restricting our rights on our own PCs. What happens if the PCs themselves contain the restrictions? How far will these restrictions go? How long before PCs come with restrictive EULA and can be repossessed for (suspected) infrigement? Already we can't mod chip our PS2s [slashdot.org]. What about our PCs? When they get region locking, will we be allowed to mod them? At least a libre BIOS might affors us some protection.

    I just wonder, if trusted computing comes into vouge, will a non DRM BIOS be considered a device for circumventing copyright, and get banned under the DMCA. All the more reason to get it established soon, before newer more ridiculous laws are passed.
    • Got some big words, but, man, get a spell checker.
  • It is IMO (it's sort of a 'zen' feeling) necessary for someone to seriously advocate freedom for every idea, even if there is no chance of it happening in the forseeable future. Also, the next logical step from free software is free firmware.

  • open bios (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 22, 2004 @05:00AM (#9768158)
    All you PC kiddies, who havnt used say, a sun box, dont know what you are missing.

    Whilst you may think that a bios is only usefull for tweeking memory timings to get a few more FPS from games, there are loads more things that it can do. For example on a sparc you can do memory, network and scsi tests at a low level before any OS gets to mess with the hardware. You can even program in forth at the OK prompt.
    The ability to boot off the network is now in place on most modern bioses, but that has come about as a direct result of having it on server class bioses for years.

    The fact that there is a full on TTY driver in the sun bios, means that you can plug the serial out into a another box and have full access to all aspects of the bios remotely. This may not seem much of a big deal to home users, but to a sysadmin it could save you hours of travel. Then there is the fact that you can change bios params. from within the OS.

    Modern bioses by just havnt kept pace with modern hardware. There is a monopoly by a few companies, all pushing out a similar product that has just the minimum functions to run the box.

    Whilst people may or may not love Stallman due to his abrasive nature youve got to admit that without him, there would be no linux, no GNU and a lot of us would be out of a job.

    So, when M$ mandates that all mother board manufacturers uses a bios like that on the Xbox, or their OS wont run on the box, who will they listen to ?? A load of linux "loonies" of a multi billion dollar corp ??

    Yes we have hacked Xbox to run linux, but its been patched and the linux hacks are getting harder and harder.

    Now under DMCA if you bypass a copy protection you are almost a terrorist. How many of our employers are going to run linux, if its illegal to bypass the bios to install it?
  • Is this a problem outside of the x86 world? Could a PowerPC 970 based system, for instance, be more easily equipped with an open bios? What about a modern iMac?

    • Re:x86 Bios problem? (Score:4, Informative)

      by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Thursday July 22, 2004 @05:46AM (#9768303) Journal
      Modern Macs, Suns and PowerPC CHRP systems all use Open Firmware, which is a significantly nicer boot system than a standard PC BIOS. As another poster pointed out, there is a free implementation [openbios.org] available. Moving the x86 world to Open Firmware would be beneficial to hardware manufacturers, since they would only need to write a single piece of ROM code, rather than one for x86 and one for (almost) everything else. It would be some effort for operating system developers, since operating systems would have to be modified to boot from Open Firmware (not a problem for Linux, *BSD, etc, since they already support OF on non-x86 platforms).
      • That's good to know. So if Microsoft and Intel succeed in turning the x86 line into useless, locked-down, glorified-X-Boxes, I can always migrate to a Mac or something. Sun's MAJC processor line sounds cool, and I've heard that wonderful non-x86 things might be coming out of Transmeta's labs in the near future. So I guess personal computing has a bright future in spite of what the TCPA has planned.
  • I very much doubt whether Richard Stallman hopes to develop an
    OSS-based BIOS. He'll be wanting a Free Software BIOS. They are
    not the same thing.
  • I don't really understand why RMS wanting something to be "free" and open is news. RMS wants the doors to the building he works in to be free and open (literally, it was posted /. but I am not going to take the time to look it up.) If RMS was a creationist he would argue with God that creation should be open and free (anyone should be able to create the universe but if you do use his model you have to release the source code).

    Note I personally prefer the modified BSD license and think GNU is trying to m
  • While probably not conforming to Stallman's definition of open-source, Open Firmware is at least non-proprietary, and is used by Sun and Apple on their computers. Maybe Palladium et al will trigger a move by the techno-elite to Apple and Sun hardware?
    • Open Firmware is at least non-proprietary, and is used by Sun and Apple on their computers

      There is even an open source implementation of Open Firmware [openfirmware.org] in the form of OpenBIOS [openbios.org].

      There is also a commercial implementation of Open Firmware from FirmWorks [firmworks.com].

      I should note that that IBM RS/6000 machines also use Open Firmware.
  • From the Article:
    You clearly point out in many interviews and articles you write that you don't associate free software with the open source movement. Why is that?

    Why do Interviewers keep asking him the same stupid questions over and over? Those questions are answered by every other interview hes ever done and his speeches [gnu.org]. (he has a new one up, btw.)

    I wish that sometimes they would target the interviews for people already familiar with Free Software. Most slashdotters know the relationship between G

  • I Like This. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bfg9000 ( 726447 ) on Thursday July 22, 2004 @08:06AM (#9768854) Homepage Journal
    I've actually thought the same thing many times (though from an 'Open Source' rather than a 'Free Sotware' viewpoint); what's the point of having a completely open-source OS and drivers if you don't have an open BIOS? From a security standpoint, it's similar to Apple's OSX -- the kernel may be open to review, but if Aqua is completely closed, there is no way you can verify that there are no backdoors in it. You can only be certain if you have 100% access to all the code running on your system and can check it yourself, and even then, it's still a bit risky (I know I'm paranoid, I'm an OpenBSD guy at heart). While it is highly unlikely, if your BIOS is closed the possibility of backdoors still exists, and will become more probable in the future as MS/Pheonix get together on their new DRM-BIOS (search old Slashdot articles to find it).

    In short: Anyone in the post 9-11 world who trusts the government or big business to look out for the rights or privacy of the individual needs to stop watching the Fox Propaganda Network and see what's happening that Rupert Murdoch DOESN'T want you to know about.

  • Open BIOS is probably a NECESSITY. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by stealth.c ( 724419 ) on Thursday July 22, 2004 @09:18AM (#9769305)
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but a BIOS is nearly negligible as far as making money. It comes on hardware which is sold for a price. So I don't quite see why PC manufacturers would be so put off by the idea.... Except that some hairy communist is trying to cram it down their throats.

    But weren't there people trying to DRM the world through the BIOS? "Trusted Computing" and all that? The only way it can be trusted is if the source can be independently audited. Seeing companies scrambling to protect themselves from their customers only gives credence to the notion that corporate power is really getting out of hand.

    But of course Stallman, like an idiot, still insists that people adapt to HIS vocabulary. He begins the interview with paragraphs of definitions. It's his lone insistence on cumbersome terminology that makes me completely fed up with listening to him--and I'm usually on his side! How sad is that? Imagine how a proprietary mind would react!

    The biggest obstacle for the acceptance of Free Software is still Richard Stallman. For Pete's sake, man, ATTEMPT to understand *other people*.

  • This is why we need a Linux (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PotatoHead ( 12771 ) * <doug.opengeek@org> on Thursday July 22, 2004 @10:15AM (#9769775) Homepage Journal
    computer. Not a computer that can run Linux, but one that is built specifically to run Linux. Ideally, this computer would not run win32 out of the box.

    Call it the Open Station, or some other thing.

    The way I see it, corporations are rapidly gaining more rights than we, as individuals, are. In order to realistically put our hat in the ring, we need a corporation that works to do our bidding. Better to start building one now than later.

    There is another side benefit here as well in that some of the benefit Apple brings to the table could also happen in Linux land. Control over the hardware, or at the least, solid known minimum specifications would allow developers to target the known environment, making support and the user experience more cohesive than it is now.

    Expensive to start? Sure, but necessary IMHO.

    Personally, I would support this effort. Say a nice machine hits the $300 - $600 mark w/o monitor. That price point would put it in reach of a lot of folks.

    We can make our voice heard in a more powerful way while bringing some credence to the whole OSS movement in a new way.

    I know Linux and the BSDs run on almost anything. That's a good thing; however, I believe if people see Linux computers as a choice, their perception of Linux might change for the better. The whole thing would become a little less leach like. (I don't believe this, but I have heard others lean this way from time to time.)

    Something to think about anyway...

  • OSS needs to go a lot further than that... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kazoo the Clown ( 644526 ) on Thursday July 22, 2004 @04:07PM (#9773556)

    The BIOS is just one area-- a critical feature we should all demend in consumer electronics gadgets (by voting with our dollars) is flashable firmware and documented architectures so OSS alternatives can be utilized to customize the hardwares capabilities. An inadvertent example is the Archos Jukebox MP3 player/recorders [rockbox.haxx.se]. We should see such capabilities in consumer devices as critical features that will allow us to fully utilize the hardware as we desire. Does the iPod provide for OSS firmware? No? Then buy an Archos or equivalent instead. Such a feature should be ADVERTISED as a competitive feature and appear on the spec sheets. The potential advantages are enormous-- what it represents, in effect, is Open Source hardware that can be utilized in ways unforseen to the manufacturers.

    Unfortunately, many manufacturers do NOT desire such features, as it tends to counteract planned or even natural obsolescence. However, if we only buy gear that is self-extensible through open source, they can be forced to provide the feature if they are losing out to competitors who aren't afraid to offer it.

  • Xbox BIOS (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Geoffreyerffoeg ( 729040 ) on Thursday July 22, 2004 @04:30PM (#9773741)
    People have been mentioning the Xbox, whose BIOS requires signed code both for the dashboard (roughly the OS) and the game discs. So of course the Xbox-Linux Project developed their own Free BIOS, Cromwell [xbox-linux.org] (see the bottom of the page), which is more or less just a Linux loader with no Microsoft BIOS code in it. (Other BIOSes like EvolutionX are derivative works of the MS BIOS and thus technically illegal.)

    So yeah, there are Free BIOSes, there is a MS BIOS that enforces a signed code restriction, and there has been a need to bypass that restriction.

  • Don't blame the PC manufacturers (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Matt_Bennett ( 79107 ) on Thursday July 22, 2004 @07:07PM (#9774901) Homepage Journal
    OK, I may be a bit biased (since I work for one of the major PC manufacturers, but not in a software or BIOS related area), but I think the problem with an open BIOS is a lot deeper than the PC manufacturer. While the PC manufacturer's schematics are confidential, the majority of the BIOS work has to do with confidential (NDA restricted) data from the silicon manufacturers. Then there is the underlying code of the BIOS used on the PC manufacturer's board, which is probably licensed from a different company.


    Ultimately, to make an open BIOS, the most important piece of cooperation you need is from the chipset manufacturers, but ultimately, you need cooperation from every single one of the manufacturers of every piece of silicon on the board.


    Of course, once you've flashed a different BIOS onto the board, don't expect to get any support from the board manufacturer- they try to stand behind their product, but that's hard enough for configurations they have been able to test.

  • It's not "OSS", it's free software. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jbn-o ( 555068 ) <mail@digitalcitizen.info> on Thursday July 22, 2004 @09:39PM (#9775810) Homepage

    The story submitter wrote:

    One key area that Richard Stallman, GNU project founder, hopes to develop is an OSS-based BIOS.

    I can guarantee you that interpretation is incorrect. RMS doesn't advocate for "OSS" (open source software) [gnu.org] or anything else to do with the open source movement. He is the founder of the free software movement and the GNU Project which aims to spread software freedom, something the open source movement does not discuss.

    Given the following passage from the interview:

    You clearly point out in many interviews and articles you write that you don't associate free software with the open source movement. Why is that?

    A: The Free Software Movement holds that software users morally deserve the freedom to run, study, change, and redistribute the software they use. The term "open source" was coined, in 1998, to encourage free and not-quite-free software while leading attention away from the ethical foundations of free software. The rhetoric of "open source" presents the issue solely as a matter of practical convenience, not as a matter of freedom and cooperation. It does not say software *should* be open source, it just recommends a certain "development model" saying it usually leads to "better" software.

    Open source proponents and the BSA disagree about how to produce "better" software, but they agree about what "better" means: powerful, reliable, convenient, and cheap. In the Free Software Movement, we have different basic values: we want to live in freedom in a community. Better software is software that we are free to share and change.

    If a person persuaded of open source ideas comes across a powerful, reliable, non-free program, she may think it admirable. "I'm surprised they were able to do this without open source," she might say, "But I can't deny that it works well." When a free software advocate looks at the same thing, she will see a nasty, unethical license. "I don't care how 'powerful' it is, if it takes away my freedom," she will say. "Let's start writing the free replacement now!"

    I'm guessing that the submitter failed to read the interview. But that wouldn't be the first time.

  • LinuxBIOS project (Score:3, Interesting)

    by John Whitley ( 6067 ) on Friday July 23, 2004 @05:42PM (#9784852) Homepage
    I'm shocked, shocked 8-) that no one seems to have linked the LinuxBIOS [linuxbios.org] project yet.

    I highly recommend checking out the project history and overview of architectural and design decisions they've made. Fascinating stuff. (Check the "papers" link on the left side, IIRC.)

    Here's a snippet from the project homepage to whet your appetites:

    Other beneficial consequences of using LinuxBIOS include needing only two working motors to boot (cpu fan and power supply), fast boot times (current fastest is 3 seconds), and freedom from proprietary (buggy) BIOS code, to name a few. These secondary benefits are numerous and have helped gain support from many vendors in both the high performance computing as well as embedded computing markets.

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close