Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 19:34 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Permalink for comment 495782
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 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-06-29
I don't have any links to give you but I'll tell you what I believe is wrong with UEFI. There was a video presention presented by the Plan9 guy Ron Minnich about CoreBoot which goes in further details.
UEFI itself is a small OS. It has it's own drivers. Which is duplicate functionality since Windows/MacOS/Linux must also provide the same drivers and functions. There are videos on Youtube where people boot up their PCs to the desktop and simply remove the BIOS chip while everything runs. And nothing crashes.
Security and costs. More code, more complex, more bugs, more space needed. UEFI does more than the current BIOS.
There are no technical reasons why a simple hardware init + payload straight to the OS couldn't be a replacement for today's BIOS.
The only reason we still have this excess layer is none other than protecting other people's IP and profits.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure someone will comment and tell me that I am wrong but those are my reasons about UEFI.
I'm not going to comment on the secureboot stuff because someone with a functioning brain knows there's no issue here. It's the usual fodder for the internet drama queens.