Originally posted by michaelb1
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Fedora Developers Discussing Possibility Of Dropping Legacy BIOS Support
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View PostWhat is the first line here?
2) " open-source implementation of a 16-bit x86 BIOS" - implementation of original could surpass this original
3) 32-bit PCI BIOS calls support
And the latest seabios git does run the post code and bootup interrupts (int 0x19/0x18) in full 32 bit mode
Comment
-
Originally posted by edwaleni View Post
Thanks for the detailed response. Oddly I have a mega core Xeon Lenovo that calls it UEFI but it's a legacy boot menu and appears to be supporting EFI 1.2.
I already threw out a collection of Acer's, Dell's and others that had EFI v1 and were just impossible to setup properly beyond Windows.
Most native EFI systems will have a CSM for legacy BIOS support although specialty systems may not have switches present to enable it ("weird" targeted computers like Microsoft Surface's maybe).
Apple has a weird implementation too although newer Mac's generally don't have a problem with it. On those, you can install natively with UEFI and not use Boot Camp. Boot Camp is just a macOS utility to shrink your Mac partition and create one for Windows, and allows you to create a driver disk. There's nothing fancy about it and it isn't involved in the boot process. If you buy a current Mac, you can wipe it and install Windows without involving Boot Camp, but getting Windows drivers for Mac hardware components has previously been a headache without having Boot Camp make that driver disk. I don't know if that's changed. Apple Software Update for Windows does provide driver updates, but I don't know if it will get core drivers if you don't have them loaded, and AFAIK Apple doesn't submit drivers to Windows Update. This is going to be moot once they switch over to ARM-based chips though. Don't expect Microsoft to release Windows-on-ARM for public consumption because it's tied up in their special hardware OEM and embedded channels.
Comment
-
Originally posted by michaelb1 View PostDropping the "legacy BIOS" support is a horrible idea:
Not just there are a lot of "legacy BIOS" PCs, especially in a corporate world where the upgrades are slower than in the domestic environments.
There are also a lot of really modern PCs running a coreboot firmware with a SeaBIOS payload - which is a modern "legacy BIOS" written in C.
I ultimately agree that dropping Legacy BIOS support wouldn't be a great idea at this point, but not for the reasons you posted. Corporate users upgraded their systems a long time ago, and really almost no one users coreboot in the grand scheme of things.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by michaelb1 View Post1) Wikipedia isn't always correct
2) " open-source implementation of a 16-bit x86 BIOS" - implementation of original could surpass this original
3) 32-bit PCI BIOS calls support
And the latest seabios git does run the post code and bootup interrupts (int 0x19/0x18) in full 32 bit mode
Comment
-
Originally posted by michaelb1 View PostThere are also a lot of really modern PCs running a coreboot firmware with a SeaBIOS payload
The only considerable number of systems that use it are Chrome OS computers whose marketshare is pretty much non-existant outside of the US education market.
Also FYI: Chrome OS itself doesn't use SeaBIOS to boot.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View PostThe only considerable number of systems that use it are Chrome OS computers whose marketshare is pretty much non-existant outside of the US education market.
This truly shows the uselessness of UEFI: when the people really have a choice - like in a coreboot world - the majority of them choose SeaBIOS.
People didn't got UEFI consciously - it got shoved down their throats together with a new PC,
just like no-one in sane mind chose a Intel ME or AMD PSP hardware backdoors consciously.
Many people don't even know that their PC is running a UEFI instead of BIOS, and don't give a crap what UEFI is
Comment
-
Originally posted by michaelb1 View Post
If you'd look at coreboot board-status reports (one of the few ways to estimate a coreboot's internal marketshare), >90% of them report SeaBIOS.
This truly shows the uselessness of UEFI: when the people really have a choice - like in a coreboot world - the majority of them choose SeaBIOS.
People didn't got UEFI consciously - it got shoved down their throats together with a new PC,
just like no-one in sane mind chose a Intel ME or AMD PSP hardware backdoors consciously.
Many people don't even know that their PC is running a UEFI instead of BIOS, and don't give a crap what UEFI is
How much is 90% of zero, again?Last edited by Giovanni Fabbro; 02 July 2020, 11:48 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View PostGoogle mandates that on Chrome OS devices
Meanwhile, the majority of those who are upgrading their Thinkpads etc with a coreboot, are consciously choosing SeaBIOS as their coreboot payload. And last time I looked through the board status reports, >90% of them contain SeaBIOS at their config. If you don't believe me, you're welcome to check for yourself - https://review.coreboot.org/admin/repos/board-status Maybe that's because UEFI is a SystemD of a BIOS world - a horrible bloatware by design and by code, even a Tianocore. So the people aren't using UEFI when they're able to make a personal conscious choice, they're choosing a SeaBIOSLast edited by michaelb1; 02 July 2020, 12:31 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by michaelb1 View Post
If you'd look at coreboot board-status reports (one of the few ways to estimate a coreboot's internal marketshare), >90% of them report SeaBIOS.
This truly shows the uselessness of UEFI: when the people really have a choice - like in a coreboot world - the majority of them choose SeaBIOS.
- Likes 2
Comment
Comment