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."
Thread beginning with comment 551213
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by Neolander on Sat 2nd Feb 2013 07:24 UTC
Member since:

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

Reply Score: 2

by moondevil on Sat 2nd Feb 2013 08:40 in reply to "Ah, UEFI"
moondevil Member since:

While people like to finger pointing to Microsoft, the company is no different than any other corporation.

Since 1999 I work for multinational enterprises and I have learned that you only interoperate if it is really required to do so. You don't do that to be nice.

There are several design choices which make no sense otherwise, such as the use of PE executables

Why don't they make sense? When Microsoft created them, each platform had their own format, most of them didn't support dynamic linking and resource embedding.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Ah, UEFI
by ssokolow on Sat 2nd Feb 2013 09:41 in reply to "RE: Ah, UEFI"
ssokolow Member since:

The ELF format used by Linux didn't originate with Linux. It was developed as a standardized cross-platform binary format.

The Wikipedia page doesn't give a date, but given the age of the citations, It's been around since at least 1995.

Here's a reformatted copy of the Wikipedia article's list of platforms which use it:

- Linux
- FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonFlyBSD
- Solaris, HP-UX, IRIX
- Syllable
- QNX Neutrino

- OpenVMS for Itanium
- BeOS r4+, Haiku
- AmigaOS 4, MorphOS, AROS

Game Consoles:
- Playstation 2, 3, and PSP
- Dreamcast
- Gamecube, Wii
- GP2X

Mobile Devices:
- Samsung Bada
- Symbian OS v9 (sort of. E32Image is based on ELF)
- Sony Ericsson W800i, W610, W300, etc.
- Siemens SGOLD and SGOLD2 platforms
- Motorola E398, SLVR L7, v360, v3i, etc.

- Atmel AVR (8-bit)
- Texas Instruments MSP430

If that's not a de facto standard among everyone except Microsoft and Apple, then nothing qualifies.

As far as I can tell, Microsoft PE, Apple Mach-O, and the XCOFF format used in AIX are literally the only significant formats that haven't been deprecated in favor of ELF.

Reply Parent Score: 5