Linked by Radio on Fri 1st Feb 2013 22:57 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems The title is pretty much self-explanatory - oh UEFI. "You can read more of what is known at H-Online, but the short summary is this: Samsung's UEFI implementation appears to be faulty. It was most likely tested with Windows only and found to work, but thorough testing with other operating systems doesn't appear to have been a priority - or perhaps a consideration at all. At present, the bug appears to affect Samsung 530U3C, 300E5C, NP700Z5C, NP700Z7C, and NP900X4C series laptops; if you have one of those laptops, we recommend you exercise extreme caution if you have a need to boot into a Linux environment."
Permalink for comment 551275
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Ah, UEFI
by Neolander on Sun 3rd Feb 2013 10:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ah, UEFI"
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

"So what?

The PE format was introduced with Windows NT in 1993 before ELF appeared.

The first document describing its format is dated from 1994.

What is the business value for Microsoft to bother to change to ELF?"

The point wasn't about Microsoft switching to ELF from what they're already using (though many of the OSes I listed did).

The point is that using PE for the successor to BIOS as opposed to ELF is an indication of how much input Microsoft had on the spec.

Heck, PE is a variation on the COFF format many of the UNIXes on that list switched away from.

That's what I meant, indeed.

Of course, Microsoft are free to use their own executable format in their OS if they want to, and they had reasons to create it back when they did.

But when pretty much everyone else has standardized on ELF, it sounds a little silly to have the successor of BIOS only support PE executables for kernel images. Unless you consider it as a design decision specifically taken so as to please Microsoft, of course.

Microsoft are not necessarily the only one to blame there either. I'm extremely curious of how decisions are taken in the UEFI committee, if nonsense like that can make its way into the spec without being subjected to some third-party scrutiny first. A careless feature inclusion process might also explain how this spec ended up becoming the huge monster that it is.

Edited 2013-02-03 10:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3