Fwupd 1.9.20 Released With Updated FPC Fingerprint Reader Support

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Fwupd 1.9.20 Released With Updated FPC Fingerprint Reader Support

While Fwupd developers are working toward the Fwupd 2.0 release, out this morning is Fwupd 1.9.20 as the newest point release for this open-source solution for firmware updating on Linux that pairs with the Linux Vendor Firmware Service (LVFS)...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Fwpupd-1.9.20-Released

[uid313]

Can PC motherboard companies such as Asus, ASRock, Gigabyte and MSI to publish their firmware on LVFS?
Maybe Canonical or IBM could partner with them or influence them to do so?

[anda_skoa]

Can PC motherboard companies such as Asus, ASRock, Gigabyte and MSI to publish their firmware on LVFS?

My understanding is that it is the very intent of LVFS to get hardware vendors to publish their respective firmwares themselves.

Maybe Canonical or IBM could partner with them or influence them to do so?

Or hardware assemblers like Lenovo, Dell, HP

[uid313]

My understanding is that it is the very intent of LVFS to get hardware vendors to publish their respective firmwares themselves.

Yes, Asus, ASRock, Gigabyte and MSI are hardware vendors, and I wish to see them publish firmware themselves.

Or hardware assemblers like Lenovo, Dell, HP

Lenovo, HP and Dell make their own PC motherboards.

As someone who builds my own computers using commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components I would Asus, ASRock, Gigabyte and MSI to publish firmware on LVFS for their motherboards.

[anda_skoa]

Lenovo, HP and Dell make their own PC motherboards.

Interesting, I was not aware.

As someone who builds my own computers using commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components I would Asus, ASRock, Gigabyte and MSI to publish firmware on LVFS for their motherboards.

All these manufacturers should team up and fund a fwupd implementation for Windows.
Then they could distribute their firmware regardless of the operating system.

And that would also take the burden of firmware updaters off from all the peripheral vendors as well.

[superm1]

I don't feel the issue with these other vendors supporting fwupd is a cross OS software problem. The format used by fwupd for UEFI capsule updates is very intentionally the same format used by Windows for UEFI capsule updates.

It's a business decision whether or not to publish that update to LVFS and to test that update and those vendors choose not to do it.

[anda_skoa]

I don't feel the issue with these other vendors supporting fwupd is a cross OS software problem

It is the opposite of a problem, it is an opportunity.

By having fwupd available on Windows these vendors could distribute firmware updates to all customers, server and desktop, not just regardless of the customer's choice in operating system but also with a single effort.

Right now the often resort of all kinds of ugly hacks, requiring customers to manually look for updates, download them and install them.
Some vendors are so bad they require users to download ZIP files with manual update instructions.

It's a business decision whether or not to publish that update to LVFS and to test that update and those vendors choose not to do it.

Creating their ugly update hacks is still a business expense they would not incur if they had a means to deliver their updates through LVFS even if the customer is using Windows.

With a Windows implementation of fwupd the computer vendors could have it as part of their Windows images, the lower level products could have it as part of their driver packages.

Also nicely marketable as "now with automatic firmware update capability".

It would essentially be a win-win-win situation:

• the Linux users get access to more firmware updates
• the Windows user get much easier access to firmware updates
• the hardware vendors don't need to deal with firmware distribution and installation

As you said, the payload is Windows compatible by design, it just lacks a system service to download and install it

[superm1]

It is the opposite of a problem, it is an opportunity.

By having fwupd available on Windows these vendors could distribute firmware updates to all customers, server and desktop, not just regardless of the customer's choice in operating system but also with a single effort.

Right now the often resort of all kinds of ugly hacks, requiring customers to manually look for updates, download them and install them.
Some vendors are so bad they require users to download ZIP files with manual update instructions.



Creating their ugly update hacks is still a business expense they would not incur if they had a means to deliver their updates through LVFS even if the customer is using Windows.

With a Windows implementation of fwupd the computer vendors could have it as part of their Windows images, the lower level products could have it as part of their driver packages.

Also nicely marketable as "now with automatic firmware update capability".

It would essentially be a win-win-win situation:

• the Linux users get access to more firmware updates
• the Windows user get much easier access to firmware updates
• the hardware vendors don't need to deal with firmware distribution and installation

As you said, the payload is Windows compatible by design, it just lacks a system service to download and install it

I think your perspective is a lot more idealistic than reality. fwupd already has support for USB devices on Windows. Literally the only ones I've heard of producing an update for it and using it in Windows are System76.

The most difficult part about bringing UEFI updates to Windows in fwupd would be that the ESRT isn't exported by Windows to applications. It's only internally used by the Windows kernel. So there would have to be proxied information from device manager for the UEFI devices. This might break some assumptions in fwupd.

[anda_skoa]

I think your perspective is a lot more idealistic than reality.

Well, yes, the described scenario is an ideal outcome as all involved parties have an advantage over the current situation.

Of course many companies don't want to work together despite the shared improved situation it would render.

fwupd already has support for USB devices on Windows.

Interesting, I didn't know it already ran on Windows.

This might break some assumptions in fwupd.

The software doesn't have to be a direct port of fwupd.
It could be a Windows specific service and still download the firmware from LVFS.

The value proposition for all concerned parties is still the same.

[superm1]

Interesting, I didn't know it already ran on Windows.

You can find the MSI file attached to each release. For example:
Release 1.9.20 · fwupd/fwupd (github.com)

It only enables USB plugins for Windows today.

The software doesn't have to be a direct port of fwupd.
It could be a Windows specific service and still download the firmware from LVFS.
The value proposition for all concerned parties is still the same.

fwupd Windows version does provide a Windows service for the daemon. I've actually gone for a PoC as far as getting GNOME Firmware to compile for mingw and work...

I think in practice what we would want to tie all this together would be GNOME firmware to be bundled in the fwupd MSI. Then it's more like what users "expect" in that you get a service (the fwupd daemon) and you get a GUI (GNOME Firmware). The GUI downloads the metadata and binaries and the service installs them.

But again, no one is asking for this and it's a ton of work.