It's Ron's privilege to name the project as he sees fit, but when people first see "LinuxBIOS", misinterpretation does seem to be common. "LinuxBIOS" does *not* mean "a BIOS for Linux" - for one thing, Linux does needs no BIOS.
Bogus. Linux needs a BIOS, to initialize the platform. Which we have shown the hard way. Linux simply needs not any help after it gets except on poorly designed ports.
Umm... OK - definition problem, I think. Everything needs firmware for hardware initialisation, maybe other housekeeping and booting the main OS: after that the main OS takes over. But that firmware isn't a "BIOS" - aka Basic Input Output System, which is what DOS originally need to run at all, and MS OSes need at least to boot. A BIOS, as I have always understood it (and how any halfway knowledgeable people I speak to have treated it), is precisely that firmware needed even after the main OS has taken over, but BIOS has come to mean "all firmware" in many people's minds.
Sun's have firmware - but it is not referred to as a "BIOS" (except, as mentioned, insofar as the acronym is used as shorthand for firmware). So I think it reasonable to say "Linux needs no BIOS" - most OSs don't, but the ones which have evolved on Intel didn't have much alternative. I understand that even the MS OSes are becoming more self sufficient.
The main feature of the LinuxBIOS code base is really hardware initialisation: everything else has been about extending the features of Linux (or Etherboot, Bochs). And that's as it should be.