Linked by Radio on Fri 1st Feb 2013 22:57 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 551228
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 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.
Edited 2013-02-02 18:41 UTC
"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.
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




Member since:
2005-07-08
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?