Linked by Radio on Fri 1st Feb 2013 22:57 UTC
Permalink for comment 551213
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-03-08
No need to look for a conspiracy against Linux here, really. When the UEFI and ACPI specs weight around 3000 pages together, it is to be expected that this kind of stupid bugs will emerge at some point. No human developer can implement something so horribly convoluted without making major mistakes at some point.
Sometimes I wish to know what happened to the people at Intel who wrote stuff like the MultiProcessor (MP) Specification of x86. You now, those fine-grained specs which focus on a small number of real-world problems, solve them well in a future-proof way, and explain the result clearly.
Perhaps that's just the difference between Intel's and Microsoft's approaches to design, though. After all, the latter company is known for liking huge monolithic specs, and it seems to me that they had a strong influence on the development of UEFI. There are several design choices which make no sense otherwise, such as the use of PE executables - which only Windows natively uses - for kernel binaries, or the whole "one platform key to rule them all" Secure Boot concept.
Edited 2013-02-02 07:27 UTC