Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 22:22 UTC, submitted by kragil
Permalink for comment 490916
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-03-08
Again, if I remember correctly, the implementation of EFI which you find on Macs does not follow the spec well, and standard-compliant EFI OSs must be heavily patched and riddled with specific workarounds to work well on Macs. For me, this qualifies as a proprietary firmware.
If I created a dvd drive which only works with square DVDs, and my company was the only one selling these drives, would you call that a standard DVD drive, or a proprietary drive ?
I don't believe that Apple would have a strong interest in preventing installation of other OSs on Macs right now, they don't have a strong interest in helping it either for that matter. However I do believe that the company has a strong interest in making installation of Mac OS X impossible on cheap standards-compliant PCs. And that nonstandard firmwares are a way to achieve that goal. So when I read on Linux development mailing lists that the implementation of EFI which you find on Macs is requires patching to deal with, I have a hard time believing that this is accidental.
Edited 2011-09-27 16:19 UTC