Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: Mark Shuttleworth Calls For An End To ACPI

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,678

    Default

    Unless someone makes a linux pc (ie something like apple for linux to get what i mean) none of the big MFGs will give a fuck about what Mark, Alan or any other linux user thinks about ACPI.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    Unless someone makes a linux pc (ie something like apple for linux to get what i mean) none of the big MFGs will give a fuck about what Mark, Alan or any other linux user thinks about ACPI.
    Chromebook?

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    Unless someone makes a linux pc (ie something like apple for linux to get what i mean) none of the big MFGs will give a fuck about what Mark, Alan or any other linux user thinks about ACPI.
    This ^ is exactly the problem

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jeffgus View Post
    Chromebook?
    chromebooks are using coreboot,how does it compare with acpi,uefi?
    Last edited by hooluupog; 03-17-2014 at 09:44 PM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Outthere, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    378

    Default

    Ironically, Mark made his millions in security.

    So yeah, doubly so, why the long-arse wait to call out what most of us already knew?

    Maybe has some investment somewhere that he wants to push and will be ACPI-free.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hooluupog View Post
    chromebooks are using coreboot,how does it compare with acpi,uefi?
    coreboot is just an open source bios.This bios is both acpi and uefi.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sireangelus View Post
    coreboot is just an open source bios.This bios is both acpi and uefi.
    BIOS is a type of firmware. Coreboot is not BIOS, and UEFI is not BIOS either. They are both different kinds of firmware. Coreboot can optionally provide ACPI, yes, and that's needed to run current hardware with power management. Coreboot can also chainload BIOS or UEFI for OSs that need those things (mostly Windows), but again that's optional.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    28

    Default How stuff works..

    Oh, if only we had good articles which explain how stuff works (to non-idiots).

    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_startup_process
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coreboot
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_U-Boot
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_GRUB
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootloader

    And oh, look, isn't that a funny screenshot:
    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...d_HTC_Pico.JPG

    Sue, if only we also had some schemes, that visualize processes...

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NotMine999 View Post
    UEFI is a useless but glamous GUI interface to the system BIOS for the "point & click" crowd.
    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    Unless someone makes a linux pc (ie something like apple for linux to get what i mean) none of the big MFGs will give a fuck about what Mark, Alan or any other linux user thinks about ACPI.
    There are actually PCs who are Linux-only and which do sell in the millions. One is the Chromebook which was already mentioned and uses Coreboot. Coreboot can directly load a Linux kernel as payload, no need for BIOS or UEFI. However, some kind of VGA BIOS may be needed under certain circumstances still.

    The other is the OLPC XO series (x86 and ARM), which uses Open Firmware, and does power management without ACPI. The implementation in the OLPC is quite compact, and the IEEE 1275 Open Firmware specification is around 266 pages. Compare this to 1084 pages for Intel EFI 1.10, which has grown to 1437 pages for UEFI 2.0 (I don't know the current count for UEFI 2.4, but I believe it is above 2000 pages now).

    So it should be clear to anybody who values small and easy to verify boot code that UEFI is totally contrary to this goal.
    Last edited by chithanh; 03-18-2014 at 07:55 AM.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chithanh View Post
    So it should be clear to anybody who values small and easy to verify boot code that UEFI is totally contrary to this goal.
    UEFI is quite complex, that's a given, but amount of documentation is hardly the best measure for software complexity in the general case. Then again, without reading either spec, I wonder if Open Firmware wouldn't need to be just a bit more complex to cover the whole scope of UEFI. Not that all the functionality UEFI provides is necessary or even desirable from a user's standpoint.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •