TUXEDO Computers Is The Latest Linux PC Vendor Eyeing Coreboot

[starshipeleven]

I wonder when mainstream manufacturers will pick up coreboot as their preferred firmware.

Never.

UEFI upstream, the Tianocore project, is free and opensource (with a permissive license) already. (I call it "upstream" because in multiple instances the UEFI bugs in vendor firmware were exactly the same as Tianocore bugs)

OEMs buy commercial SDKs based on it and only integrate it with their hardware design. They don't want to invest the money into making their own firmware stack.

[Guest]

Never.

UEFI upstream, the Tianocore project, is free and opensource (with a permissive license) already. (I call it "upstream" because in multiple instances the UEFI bugs in vendor firmware were exactly the same as Tianocore bugs)

OEMs buy commercial SDKs based on it and only integrate it with their hardware design. They don't want to invest the money into making their own firmware stack.

That's kind of sad, as UEFI is the last thing I want to use, especially tianocore, considering how slow it is to initialize, and the fact that you'd probably want to run a bootloader from it. I wish I could just grab upstream coreboot, compile it with whatever payload I want, and upgrade firmware myself.

[Guest]

That's kind of sad, as UEFI is the last thing I want to use, especially tianocore, considering how slow it is to initialize, and the fact that you'd probably want to run a bootloader from it. I wish I could just grab upstream coreboot, compile it with whatever payload I want, and upgrade firmware myself.

If you want to make your customers happy, then things must work. Robustness ensures things work, but comes at price of performance. It's always a trade. And, it's always easier, if you can transfer responsibility over that to somebody else, even if it comes at some fixed price.

[starshipeleven]

If you want to make your customers happy, then things must work. Robustness ensures things work, but comes at price of performance. It's always a trade. And, it's always easier, if you can transfer responsibility over that to somebody else, even if it comes at some fixed price.

"robustness" isn't what comes to mind when someone talks of UEFI or in general about board firmware.

Anyway, they don't give a shit, they only care about price and ease of use for their own men (man-hours = money).

If a firmware vendor comes to them and shows a cheaper and easier to use alternative to bloated UEFI shit that sill allows them to boot Windows in UEFI mode, they will jump ship.

[Guest]

If you want to make your customers happy, then things must work. Robustness ensures things work, but comes at price of performance. It's always a trade. And, it's always easier, if you can transfer responsibility over that to somebody else, even if it comes at some fixed price.

Have you ever seen how simple bootloaders can get? I wonder why PC manufacturers haven't pushed through anything similar to rpi's bootloader yet. It's idiot-proof, as you only need to give it a text file describing how to launch the payload on the first partition. It's so easy that it beats even MBR when it comes to convenience.

[starshipeleven]

Have you ever seen how simple bootloaders can get? I wonder why PC manufacturers haven't pushed through anything similar to rpi's bootloader yet. It's idiot-proof, as you only need to give it a text file describing how to launch the payload on the first partition. It's so easy that it beats even MBR when it comes to convenience.

a slightly more cross-platform bootloader that can also do that is u-boot.

And no, PC manufacturers don't give a shit about that, Windows boot process is always the same and the user is not expected to install the OS nor to change board firmware settings, you don't need easy configuration.

[Guest]

a slightly more cross-platform bootloader that can also do that is u-boot.

And no, PC manufacturers don't give a shit about that, Windows boot process is always the same and the user is not expected to install the OS nor to change board firmware settings, you don't need easy configuration.

Considering Windows moved onto UEFI as the preferred boot method over the years, I don't see why they wouldn't be willing to add another one that's even simpler to implement (and harder to screw up).

[starshipeleven]

Considering Windows moved onto UEFI as the preferred boot method over the years, I don't see why they wouldn't be willing to add another one that's even simpler to implement (and harder to screw up).

Didn't you understand what I said?

They don't see any of that complexity as they buy a SDK from a board firmware vendor. The board manufacturer's programmers are only setting up configuration for blobs.

[pgeorgi]

Not until there is a corporate entity they can buy CoreBoot technical support from.

https://coreboot.org/consulting.html lists a few.