Red Hat / Fedora To Work On Bringing Up Arm Laptops Under Linux

[techzilla]

Bro, I've got an ARM UEFI notebook, it has UEFI because MS said it was required. Beyond the first couple versions of Android, there was absolutely no excuse, it became more egregious after ARM study was officially published.

Expecting the same results? Nope, I expect Google to go out of their way to disempower their users. I'd also expect that from Apple, who because they control all their hardware could make sure it had UEFI without fear of losing control. What matters is that Google is worse than MS when they are the dominant player, they are worse for free software, and are worse for the users of free software.

Google still hasn't standardized, last I checked, or have they been forced to since MS broke that egg open? They have absolutely no interest in standardizing the pre-boot environment, never did, and preferred the costs over the loss of control. I don't see what is bullshit here, none of my examples require us to go back to DOS. Why did you ignore the example that clearly demonstrate how Google harmed every customer, harmed every person who bought a processor, and harmed everyone who uses a free OS?

Whatever benefit was bestowed on MS, 30 years ago, they created a more free and open ecosystem today. Google was content not doing that, that's what matters, neither are scrappy upstarts. Both have the power to compel an ecosystem, and under Google's leadership we suffered more.

[starshipeleven]

Beyond the first couple versions of Android, there was absolutely no excuse

Google does not have the same level of control. Android is open source, Linux is opensource.

If Google tries to enforce too much, too strongly, they risk a fork.

Which is why they are doing it slowly over time.

Expecting the same results? Nope, I expect Google to go out of their way to disempower their users.

That's because you are a moron that can't understand context. Google isn't going out of their way to disempower anyone, the conditions of the two monopolies you compare differ significantly, Google has much less power than Microsoft over the OEMs.

Google still hasn't standardized, last I checked, or have they been forced to since MS broke that egg open? They have absolutely no interest in standardizing the pre-boot environment, never did, and preferred the costs over the loss of control.

The preboot environment is much less important when they still can't properly update their OS because the kernel relies on hacks and blobs, and it's not even "their OS", it's a customized respin of Android made by the hardware manufacturer, and updated (or not updated) by the OEM.

Does this look like a situation where Google has the same amount of power Microsoft has?

Can I remind you that even if ARM smartphones had UEFI right now you still could not use most of their hardware because it relies on blobs and kernel hacks that aren't in mainline? UEFI won't fix that.
Is this even remotely comparable to Windows?

That's where Google is focusing right now.

none of my examples require us to go back to DOS.

It's not an example, it's a factual explanation of why you are wrong.
Microsoft monopoly started with DOS, without any concession or freedom to OEMs.

Whatever benefit was bestowed on MS, 30 years ago, they created a more free and open ecosystem today.

Whatever benefit my ass. That's half of the whole difference between these situations.

If you say two different situations are the same, and that any difference is because one of the two parties is inherently evil you are a fucking moron.

I'll break this down one more time

Microsoft:
-got a monopoly position from IBM and kept it more or less until now
-closed source OS that can't be modified by OEMs

Google:
-got in a monopoly only recently, by specifically catering to OEMs that need to hack and make their own respin of the OS to diversify their own product
-open source OS that can be modified by OEMs down to the hardware. Only thing that is sacred is the application APIs.

[schmidtbag]

ARM devices have embedded storage, they don't need an EEPROM. Also the use of CMOS for settings died with BIOS firmware. UEFI settings are stored on flash.

ARM devices sometimes have embedded storage. It isn't a universal requirement.

Just as the "PC" world before Microsoft was a wild west. They did rule with an iron fist, but they did force hardware manufacturers to obey to standards.

Irrelevant point. Unlike MS, Google isn't completely dominating the entire ARM market.

1. SecureBoot was Intel's idea
2. Microsoft only ever required mobile devices to have "always on" secure boot, which isn't unlike most other mobile devices. Everywhere else you can turn it off or even load your own keys into it.

I haven't found anything suggesting SecureBoot was only Intel's idea. An EFI was Intel's idea, but you can have a [U]EFI without SecureBoot.

We aren't talking about you, we are talking about general usage.

I understand that... I expressed my opinion in order for it to be challenged. That's why I implied it was an opinion and not the general consensus...

The ability to run something on any ARM device without having to care about how any particular device expects the kernel and the dtb and whatever else is a big turning point, as it was for PC back then.
UEFI is shit, but it is a standard, which automatically makes it better than whatever random hacked u-boot fork or proprietary unknown bootloader the OEM decides to use.

I agree, but you don't need a [U]EFI to do that.

[techzilla]

If we had UEFI. we could write the code to drive the hardware. As it stands now, it isn't worth doing, why bother when it helps nobody use the thing?

What is this insane view of existing MS? Google is the new MS, stop fighting the battles of the late 90s. MS isn't dominating with a barrier to entry, it makes a HUGE difference.

Whatever the reason, the conclusion with MS in charge it was better for us, we built out of it. We could NEVER build anything sustainable with the shifting sands Google has created. They are a strait up totalitarian threat to free society, why are you defending them? What freedom are you trying to defend? I certainly can't see any of it, so help us understand.

[starshipeleven]

If we had UEFI. we could write the code to drive the hardware.

Plenty of devices in UEFI that none bothers writing a driver for because there is no documentation and none pays for development.

What is this insane view of existing MS?

It's the reality.

Google is the new MS,

Not really.

MS isn't dominating with a barrier to entry

Google isn't dominating with a barrier to entry either. They are a much weaker ruler with not enough power to remove the barrier to entry imposed by hardware manufacturers.

Whatever the reason, the conclusion with MS in charge it was better for us, we built out of it. We could NEVER build anything sustainable with the shifting sands Google has created.

ARM, Mips and embedded world in general has been like this since the DOS times. The mobile market is just one section of a much larger market of similar devices. Blaming Google is disingenuous.

They are a strait up totalitarian threat to free society, why are you defending them? What freedom are you trying to defend? I certainly can't see any of it, so help us understand.

I'm defending the truth, as simple as that.

Your analysis of the situation is plain wrong, and as such some of your conclusions are also bullshit.

[starshipeleven]

ARM devices sometimes have embedded storage. It isn't a universal requirement.

Well, all real ones do, be it a single NOR flash chip or a NAND flash chip or a eMMC. Only toy SBC and devboards boot from the SDcard.

I haven't found anything suggesting SecureBoot was only Intel's idea.

Secure Boot is UEFI's verified boot implementation. I'm sure many wanted some way to have a verified boot, but that's how Intel defined it in their UEFI spec.

An EFI was Intel's idea, but you can have a [U]EFI without SecureBoot.

It's not required to claim your device is UEFI.
It's required (and they also want it enabled by default) to claim your device is certified to run Windows 8 (and later), but that just tells us that Microsoft wants this feature in the firmware.

I agree, but you don't need a [U]EFI to do that.

Technically speaking yes, in practice no other such firmware exists so it's an hypotetical.

For small systems with no addon cards you can get away fine.
If you want addon cards you need an "Extensible" firmware that loads and executes the "UEFI BIOS" (which is a UEFI application) of the device on boot to initialize them and/or provide services on boot.
For example RAID cards have a UEFI BIOS to allow booting from the array. GPUs have a UEFI BIOS for initialization reasons.
Old BIOS had a specification to do the same (OptionROM).

Uboot can't do that afaik.

[schmidtbag]

Well, all real ones do, be it a single NOR flash chip or a NAND flash chip or a eMMC. Only toy SBC and devboards boot from the SDcard.

Do all server platforms have built-in flash storage?
The point is, built-in storage isn't universal among ARM, and a lack of standardization in that regard is enough to hinder these efforts. And let's not forget there's ARM microcontrollers.

Technically speaking yes, in practice no other such firmware exists so it's an hypotetical.

So... what do you make of the pre-EFI BIOSes?

...
Uboot can't do that afaik.

As of right now, it probably can't. I don't see what prevents it from doing so.
For the record, I'm not saying we should have something like uboot do the work of an EFI, or that there's anything wrong with using [U]EFI for ARM.
Really, my only point was that Google isn't responsible for providing this kind of stuff.

[techzilla]

my only point was that Google isn't responsible for providing this kind of stuff.

There are responsibilities that come with power, and surveillance woke capital has proven itself worse than MS was for us. This is the only important conclusion, MS brought us an ARM based general computing platform, and Google didn't. Despite the fact that Google brought more powerful small computers in everyone's pocket, than MS ever brought in as laptops and computers, it can only pretend it has no responsibility to empower the users when leading the tech industry.

The idea that Google cannot mandate a standardized boot environment, despite the fact that open source implementations exist for most boards somewhere on github, is a laughably ridiculous notion. The standardized boot environment makes maintaining devices less expensive, and reduces the cost of expensive custom engineering. It would reduce the cost of an OEM selecting Android, the exact opposite of what the detractors have asserted. Do they have the right to avoid doing something against their interests? Yes they certainly do, but that still leaves MS more aligned with our interests.

I agree, but you don't need a [U]EFI to do that.

ARM commissioned a major study on this question, and their conclusion was clear, they need a standardized hardware platform to "do that". You can say "well it could be something other than UEFI", and in theory it could be, but the study also provided an iron clad case that UEFI/ACPI is the only reasonable choice. An entire technology ecosystem is required to get a product into customer hands, and each part must be able and willing to fulfil its job. So we need a standardized pre-boot environment, and nothing else can credibly become said environment as there is only one viable option. Disagreeing with that study, and its conclusions, is a clear example of you going beyond what you claimed was your "only point".

[schmidtbag]

There are responsibilities that come with power, and surveillance woke capital has proven itself worse than MS was for us. This is the only important conclusion, MS brought us an ARM based general computing platform, and Google didn't. Despite the fact that Google brought more powerful small computers in everyone's pocket, than MS ever brought in as laptops and computers, it can only pretend it has no responsibility to empower the users when leading the tech industry.

There's a very big difference between having some responsibility to a market you are heavily invested in, vs accusing them of being the sole reason for all your problems, which is what you implied when you said:
"I'm not forgiving Google for fucking all of us. MS is better for Linux users EVEN when they don't use linux on their products, Google trapped us with an intentionally crippled boot process. .... if Google didn't enable and promote an intentionally crippled hardware eco-system."
All of that is blown astronomically out of proportion. Google is not responsible for Linux users on ARM. They're not responsible in any sense of the word for making it easier for users to alter the boot process, let alone have any actual control in it since they aren't the ones who make ARM. They're a software company.

The idea that Google cannot mandate a standardized boot environment, despite the fact that open source implementations exist for most boards somewhere on github, is a laughably ridiculous notion. The standardized boot environment makes maintaining devices less expensive, and reduces the cost of expensive custom engineering. It would reduce the cost of an OEM selecting Android, the exact opposite of what the detractors have asserted. Do they have the right to avoid doing something against their interests? Yes they certainly do, but that still leaves MS more aligned with our interests.

None of what you said there makes any sense. Why would Google deliberately cripple their own partners and userbase for a feature they couldn't care less about? If they mandate something like that, existing devices that don't have a standardized boot environment will be incompatible with their product. That's ridiculous.
Meanwhile, why would Google care about a standardized boot environment when the vast majority of their users aren't asking for one? Their job is to make an OS. How it is deployed is up to the partners. Google isn't expecting people to dual boot their phones, and the whole point of a Chromebook is to cater to tech-unsavvy people. You're asking them to step up for something that hardly anyone cares about.
Keep in mind, I own several ARM devices myself. I'd love to see a standardized boot process for ARM. I believe there should be one. But, never would I expect Google to be responsible for it, and I'm sure most of their competitors would not be keen on Google calling the shots for them.
If you want someone to point fingers at, point them at SoftBank.

ARM commissioned a major study on this question, and their conclusion was clear, they need a standardized hardware platform to "do that". You can say "well it could be something other than UEFI", and in theory it could be, but the study also provided an iron clad case that UEFI/ACPI is the only reasonable choice. An entire technology ecosystem is required to get a product into customer hands, and each part must be able and willing to fulfil its job. So we need a standardized pre-boot environment, and nothing else can credibly become said environment as there is only one viable option. Disagreeing with that study, and its conclusions, is a clear example of you going beyond what you claimed was your "only point".

And yet somehow, you don't realize that it is ARM/SoftBank who should cater to the requests of their survey. Somehow, you think Google, a 3rd party company that doesn't even have a license to manufacture ARM chips, is responsible.
I don't deny what people want and what ARM devices should have. I never disagreed with the study. My gripe is how you think Google is the reason why nothing is happening.