[LinuxBIOS] From slashdot - a company possibly using linuxbios.

[Janek Kozicki]

Hi,

I just wanted to let you know about Phoenix company (news from slashdot).

My point is - we could check if they use LinuxBIOS and if so - do
they respect the license?

"Phoenix Technologies, a developer of BIOS software, is working on a
  new technology called Hyperspace that will allow you to instantly
  load certain applications like email, web browser and media player,
  without loading windows. It could even lead to tailoring of computers
  to even more specific demographics, like a student laptop preloaded
  with word processor, email and an IM all available at the press of a
  button."

URL: http://www.phoenix.com/en/Home/default.htm

best regards

[David Hendricks]

I haven't checked into this much, but one thing is for sure -- "instant on"
and EFI are oxymorons.

On Nov 5, 2007 1:04 PM, Janek Kozicki  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just wanted to let you know about Phoenix company (news from slashdot).
>
> My point is - we could check if they use LinuxBIOS and if so - do
> they respect the license?
>
> "Phoenix Technologies, a developer of BIOS software, is working on a
>  new technology called Hyperspace that will allow you to instantly
>  load certain applications like email, web browser and media player,
>  without loading windows. It could even lead to tailoring of computers
>  to even more specific demographics, like a student laptop preloaded
>  with word processor, email and an IM all available at the press of a
>  button."
>
> URL: http://www.phoenix.com/en/Home/default.htm
> best regards
>
> Janek Kozicki

[David Hendricks]

bleh

s/are oxymorons/is an oxymoron

On Nov 5, 2007 2:02 PM, David Hendricks  wrote:
> I haven't checked into this much, but one thing is for sure -- "instant
> on" and EFI are oxymorons.
>
> On Nov 5, 2007 1:04 PM, Janek Kozicki < [e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just wanted to let you know about Phoenix company (news from
> > slashdot).
> >
> > My point is - we could check if they use LinuxBIOS and if so - do
> > they respect the license?
> >
> > "Phoenix Technologies, a developer of BIOS software, is working on a
> >  new technology called Hyperspace that will allow you to instantly
> >  load certain applications like email, web browser and media player,
> >  without loading windows. It could even lead to tailoring of computers
> >  to even more specific demographics, like a student laptop preloaded
> >  with word processor, email and an IM all available at the press of a
> >  button."
> >
> > URL: http://www.phoenix.com/en/Home/default.htm
> > best regards
> >
> > Janek Kozicki

[ron minnich]

I don't think we need to waste our time chasing these companies down.
Let's just put our efforts into making linuxbios better and better.

ron

[bari]

Recently the "Splashtop" by DeviceVM

http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS4383814601.html
http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/10/devicevm-launch.html

followed by "Hyperspace" by Phoenix have been getting attention in the 
press.

I'm not sure if their investors and management feel that a closed source 
BIOS has the only hope of success in the market or if they are unaware 
of LinuxBIOS.

The LinuxBIOS with X Server video
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nuzRsXKm_NQ
has been viewed over 160K times.

Why doesn't someone with time here put together a short and clear video 
demo of LinuxBIOS with the same capabilities of splashtop or hyperspace 
and more?

Ron's OLPC + LinuxBIOS and Pete's CarPC/mp3 videos only show a boot to a 
shell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ig8vW5ACP-k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl1OWxbWCkA

-Bari

ron minnich wrote:
> I don't think we need to waste our time chasing these companies down.
> Let's just put our efforts into making linuxbios better and better.
>
> ron

[Patrick Georgi]

bari schrieb:
> I'm not sure if their investors and management feel that a closed source 
> BIOS has the only hope of success in the market or if they are unaware 
> of LinuxBIOS.

In case of Phoenix it's probably because they have most of the necessary
code lying around already, and seem to do quite well with their closed
source business model.

Regards,
Patrick Georgi

[bari]

Patrick Georgi wrote:
> bari schrieb:
> > I'm not sure if their investors and management feel that a closed source 
> > BIOS has the only hope of success in the market or if they are unaware 
> > of LinuxBIOS.
>
> In case of Phoenix it's probably because they have most of the necessary
> code lying around already, and seem to do quite well with their closed
> source business model.

Phoenix is now publicizing a "we have it to" since DeviceVM made their 
announcement. Is it just catch up in case they are missing anything? Is 
there a real demand for near instant boot to email, browser and 
multimedia players? If so LinuxBIOS easily supports this.

Up to a few years ago a PC BIOS still needed to support OS's that rely 
on BIOS calls. That need has and is still dwindling. Is this still a 
major reason for the popularity of the closed source BIOS?

Intel has been pushing their own agenda with EFI (and TCPA) and ignores 
LinuxBIOS. Is this another reason why closed source BIOS is still going 
strong?

Back in 2003 Slashdot had an interview with an AMI developer:
http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/17/1430214
where he brought up the issues of NDA's on chipsets. I'm sure everyone 
can understand why a chipset vendor would want to keep information 
secret about a chipset before it is released into the market. But after 
it is released (even after several months), why all the secrecy?

All the LinuxBIOS community basically needs in order to port a BIOS are 
register settings and the order in which they should be set. Are the 
concerns of violating patents on chipset IP or fixing engineering 
mistakes in silicon with BIOS that great a problem?

Motherboard schematics are another issue.  Interrupt routing and use of 
GPIO's are not big secrets. Obfuscated FLASH write enables have always 
been hacked by end users when really needed. What are the "secrets" in 
typical motherboard schematics?

Are ideologies or the need to have control of information the reasons 
closed source BIOS is still so popular?

Do vendors really feel that they will have tech support nightmares if 
they release accurate and unsupported BIOS specifications?

-Bari

[Robert Vogel]

I'm catching up on my reading, so there has been some delay since the last 
post to this thread.

One of the reasons why the LinuxBios project seems so large is that it 
attempts to satisfy the requirements of many different mother boards. Yet, 
it has not come up with a machine that is easily available. I don't see 
anything close to a desktop machine for the consumer yet.

Is there a good reason why a single, perhaps custom, motherboard running 
LinuxBios would not be sufficient for, say, most desktop users ?
The chipset could be selected so that there are no hiding places. If the 
Bios itself is socketed and replaceable, why should it not be a device that 
could be instantly on ?

Ideally, an independent organization such as the FSF might certify a machine 
that is completely open...and therefore trustworthy. It wouldn't need to be 
backwards compatible with DOS nor would it run windows. It could skip 
cutting-edge graphics so that there should be no NDAs. Is that possible ?

Thoughts ?

[Corey Osgood]

Robert Vogel wrote:
> I'm catching up on my reading, so there has been some delay since the last 
> post to this thread.
>
> One of the reasons why the LinuxBios project seems so large is that it 
> attempts to satisfy the requirements of many different mother boards. Yet, 
> it has not come up with a machine that is easily available. I don't see 
> anything close to a desktop machine for the consumer yet.

Gigabyte GA-M57SLI??? Is there some reason it doesn't fit your requirements?

-Corey
> Is there a good reason why a single, perhaps custom, motherboard running 
> LinuxBios would not be sufficient for, say, most desktop users ?
> The chipset could be selected so that there are no hiding places. If the 
> Bios itself is socketed and replaceable, why should it not be a device that 
> could be instantly on ?
>
> Ideally, an independent organization such as the FSF might certify a machine 
> that is completely open...and therefore trustworthy. It wouldn't need to be 
> backwards compatible with DOS nor would it run windows. It could skip 
> cutting-edge graphics so that there should be no NDAs. Is that possible ?
>
> Thoughts ?

[Robert Vogel]

Well...yes there is a reason the GA-M57SLI doesn't really work for me. To 
see why take a look at Ward's tutorial at
http://linuxbios.org/GIGABYTE_GA-M57SLI-S4_Build_Tutorial

The obstacles are obvious from the tutorial.

If somebody could make these modifications and ship me a working board, I 
could reimburse them for their trouble.

Anyone like to quote me a price for this service ?

Bob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Corey Osgood" 
To: "Robert Vogel" 
Cc: "ron minnich" ; "LinuxBIOS mailinglist" 
; "Janek Kozicki" 
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: [LinuxBIOS] From slashdot - a company possibly using linuxbios.
> Robert Vogel wrote:
> > I'm catching up on my reading, so there has been some delay since the 
> > last
> > post to this thread.
> >
> > One of the reasons why the LinuxBios project seems so large is that it
> > attempts to satisfy the requirements of many different mother boards. 
> > Yet,
> > it has not come up with a machine that is easily available. I don't see
> > anything close to a desktop machine for the consumer yet.
>
> Gigabyte GA-M57SLI??? Is there some reason it doesn't fit your 
> requirements?
>
> -Corey
> > Is there a good reason why a single, perhaps custom, motherboard running
> > LinuxBios would not be sufficient for, say, most desktop users ?
> > The chipset could be selected so that there are no hiding places. If the
> > Bios itself is socketed and replaceable, why should it not be a device 
> > that
> > could be instantly on ?
> >
> > Ideally, an independent organization such as the FSF might certify a 
> > machine
> > that is completely open...and therefore trustworthy. It wouldn't need to 
> > be
> > backwards compatible with DOS nor would it run windows. It could skip
> > cutting-edge graphics so that there should be no NDAs. Is that possible ?
> >
> > Thoughts ?

[Uwe Hermann]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 11:43:30AM -0500, Robert Vogel wrote:
> Well...yes there is a reason the GA-M57SLI doesn't really work for me. To 
> see why take a look at Ward's tutorial at
> http://linuxbios.org/GIGABYTE_GA-M57SLI-S4_Build_Tutorial
>
> The obstacles are obvious from the tutorial.

Not really. Do you refer to the required hardware hacking? Yes, that's
an ugly obstacle IMO, but there are a few other modern boards which are
supported and which have a standard socketed ROM which doesn't require
any hardware hacking at all.

E.g. MSI MS-7260 (K9N Neo), ASUS A8N-E, ASUS A8V-E SE, and others.

http://linuxbios.org/Supported_Motherboards

http://linuxbios.org/MSI_MS-7260_Build_Tutorial
http://linuxbios.org/ASUS_A8N-E_Build_Tutorial
http://linuxbios.org/ASUS_A8V-E_SE_Build_Tutorial

HTH, Uwe.

[Patrick Georgi]

Janek Kozicki schrieb:
> I just wanted to let you know about Phoenix company (news from slashdot).
>
> My point is - we could check if they use LinuxBIOS and if so - do
> they respect the license?

I doubt phoenix needs linuxbios to pull such a stunt - they're the major
x86 firmware maker, after all.

Regards,
Patrick Georgi