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.
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
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.