Ronald G Minnich rminnich@lanl.gov writes:
OK, looking around, it's about what I expected.
However one thing we might be able to use: EFI is called from something called SAL. SAL is real low-level stuff you will never see the source to that does all the horrible stuff that Intel won't tell us how to do.
You don't need EFI. You need something to link to SAL that replaces EFI. I think that's our hook.
As a start perhaps. But there is only one thing I have seen that is slower than the native L440GX BIOS. An Itanium Box. And judging by when the video screen came on it looks like it was probably in that mysterious SAL code.
And while I have no problem with BIOS code taking it's time. On a personal level I hate to work with slow BIOS's. And when things are unreasonably slow I suspect that there is something that just doesn't work running in there.
So if intel won't cooperate we need to plan on reverse engineering SAL. Unless IA64 dies soon it is probably a worthwhile investment.
Eric - To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
I'm good with reverse engineering SAL then. All the itanium software that intel ships is just so terrible from what I've seen. Maybe we can help them a little :-)
ron
- To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
[...] But there is only one thing I have seen that is slower than the native L440GX BIOS. An Itanium Box.
I do have to say that I have a little hope for Intel. We use the L440GX extensivly and later versions of the BIOS seem significantly faster than the 7th release we initialy ran. Maybe even twice as fast!
And while I have no problem with BIOS code taking it's time. On a personal level I hate to work with slow BIOS's. And when things are unreasonably slow I suspect that there is something that just doesn't work running in there.
Absolutly, it's reminding me of windoze syndrome.
~Jason
On 27 Aug 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Ronald G Minnich rminnich@lanl.gov writes:
OK, looking around, it's about what I expected.
However one thing we might be able to use: EFI is called from something called SAL. SAL is real low-level stuff you will never see the source to that does all the horrible stuff that Intel won't tell us how to do.
You don't need EFI. You need something to link to SAL that replaces EFI. I think that's our hook.
As a start perhaps. But there is only one thing I have seen that is slower than the native L440GX BIOS. An Itanium Box. And judging by when the video screen came on it looks like it was probably in that mysterious SAL code.
And while I have no problem with BIOS code taking it's time. On a personal level I hate to work with slow BIOS's. And when things are unreasonably slow I suspect that there is something that just doesn't work running in there.
There was a post on /. today about a BIOS that boots in .8 sec. That seems to be pretty good... Now all we need to do is speed up linux boot...
Chris.
-- chris maresca internet systems architect -- www.chrismaresca.com
"linux, only up 138 days, because california has flaky power... "
- To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
There was a post on /. today about a BIOS that boots in .8 sec. That seems to be pretty good... Now all we need to do is speed up linux boot...
There is a lot of spam during linux bootup that strikes me as gratuitous techie garbage. It would be better to find a way of booting directly into the OpenWindows or some such.
Not wishing to be negative, but I would really like to ask Linus as to why he chose to have all that spam redirected to the screen at bootup. It is'nt very eyecatching.
We can get around this by hand-coding in some basic graphics primitives. Award BIOS managed to do it with the famous 'Energy Saver' trademark we all see when we power up our PC's...so it must be possible for our coders to capitalise on this kind of 'instant graphics'.
Bresenhams' algorithm and some other basic scan-conversion primitives are a must. (For more information, see 'Computer Graphics' by Foley et. Al...)
Hope this helps, Gavin. - To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Gavin Robert Brewer wrote:
There was a post on /. today about a BIOS that boots in .8 sec. That seems to be pretty good... Now all we need to do is speed up linux boot...
There is a lot of spam during linux bootup that strikes me as gratuitous techie garbage. It would be better to find a way of booting directly into the OpenWindows or some such.
Er, that would be really bad on a server. What I really want is to boot to serial console, then initialize the graphics card if it exists.
Not wishing to be negative, but I would really like to ask Linus as to why he chose to have all that spam redirected to the screen at bootup. It is'nt very eyecatching.
He's already complained about it, mostly about all the sigs and self-promotion. BUT, would rather have that than not know what's going on, ala windows & mac...
BTW, one of the advantages of living in Silicon Valley is that there are a number of Linux gurus living around here... Linus regularly attends SVLUG and BALUG meetings. He would have been at Linux10, but he's on vacation in Finland right now...
We can get around this by hand-coding in some basic graphics primitives. Award BIOS managed to do it with the famous 'Energy Saver' trademark we all see when we power up our PC's...so it must be possible for our coders to capitalise on this kind of 'instant graphics'.
Hhmmm, that's just gratuitous eye candy, no? Besides, it's pretty trivial to replace those graphics with logos or other stuff. I think that doing things that are new and usefull (like serial consoles) would really help get people and hardware manufacturers interested. Imagine being able to run a server farm with no graphics cards, just a serial console and ethernet...
Chris.
-- chris maresca internet systems architect -- www.chrismaresca.com
"linux, only up 138 days, because california has flaky power... "
- To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
Chris Maresca wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Gavin Robert Brewer wrote:
There is a lot of spam during linux bootup that strikes me as gratuitous techie garbage. It would be better to find a way of booting directly into the OpenWindows or some such.
Er, that would be really bad on a server. What I really want is to boot to serial console, then initialize the graphics card if it exists.
Er, I was not referring to a Server. I was referring to a system built by the people FOR the people; not just for business. It's a matter of personal taste.
He's already complained about it, mostly about all the sigs and self-promotion. BUT, would rather have that than not know what's going on, ala windows & mac...
Why not redirect the boot sequence to a log file? Then you would not get all the nasty looking spam; but you could take a look at it, (if you wanted).
What I do not understand about you calif. techies, is that you have little or no aesthetic sense. Not wishing to be rude, but I think that sometimes you simply dont care. My old g/f always told me never to say 'I dont care'.
Form and function are two sides of the same jewel in my view. It HAS to look good.
BTW, one of the advantages of living in Silicon Valley is that there are a number of Linux gurus living around here... Linus regularly attends SVLUG and BALUG meetings. He would have been at Linux10, but he's on vacation in Finland right now...
Okay, but pls. remember that there are other OSes out there apart from Linux.
We can get around this by hand-coding in some basic graphics primitives. Award BIOS managed to do it with the famous 'Energy Saver' trademark we all see when we power up our PC's...so it must be possible for our coders to capitalise on this kind of 'instant graphics'.
Hhmmm, that's just gratuitous eye candy, no? Besides, it's pretty trivial to replace those graphics with logos or other stuff.
It may be eye-candy, but how do they do it? The point is, that they command instant graphics, which means an instant GUI.
It is my dream to see an instant GUI appear on the screen at power-up.
There is nothing stopping anyone seeing the bootloader sequence appearing at startup; however this should be done inside a window, not in plain ol' text mode. Again, it is a matter of aesthetics.
I think that doing things that are new and usefull (like serial consoles) would really help get people and hardware manufacturers interested. Imagine being able to run a server farm with no graphics cards, just a serial console and ethernet...
The server farm is a cool idea. If you want, I can submit the outline design idea for my new multiprocessor machine. Building a multiprocesing server is quite easy, (some dudes in a UK uni. managed to cobble one together from old 486 CPUs)..the problem is the operating system...
As a solution to this, I would suggest porting and using Mach. The source is very much complete, and is available from Carnegie-Mellon university at:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/mach/public/www/mach.html
In my view, there is no dichotomy between useful and aesthetically pleasing. I would even go as far as to say that functionality and form are united under the heading of Quality, (see Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance).
Textual interfaces are pretty much obsolete. You should be able to emulate them at will, but the quality of the system fonts is often poor, and given today's PCs, could be a LOT better. Whilst we are at it, we might as well have a GUI at startup.
Have a nice day, Gavin.
On Tuesday, August 28, 2001, at 01:18 , Gavin Robert Brewer wrote:
... The server farm is a cool idea. If you want, I can submit the outline design idea for my new multiprocessor machine. Building a multiprocesing server is quite easy, (some dudes in a UK uni. managed to cobble one together from old 486 CPUs)..the problem is the operating system...
As a solution to this, I would suggest porting and using Mach. The source is very much complete, and is available from Carnegie-Mellon university at:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/mach/public/www/mach.html
In my view, there is no dichotomy between useful and aesthetically pleasing. I would even go as far as to say that functionality and form are united under the heading of Quality, (see Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance).
Textual interfaces are pretty much obsolete. You should be able to emulate them at will, but the quality of the system fonts is often poor, and given today's PCs, could be a LOT better. Whilst we are at it, we might as well have a GUI at startup.
Are you talking about a BIOS ? I think you're well beyond the subject...
While I too valuate the look&feel of an OS (I bought a Mac to have Mac OS X running), the goal of a good OpenBIOS is to initialize all the hardware components of a "PC" to a known state, and then give the hand to a boot process which will eventually load and run an Operating System.
The graphics part of the BIOS could be as simple as initializing a framebuffer and maybe present a logo (à la SUN or Silicon Graphics), or a hint to the BOOT process (à la Apple) I don't think it's really useful to show some animations for the detection of devices (disk controllers, network cards or mass storage) or the amount of memory present in the system.
OTOH, focusing on an implementation of the IEEE 1275-1994 standard would benefit a larger goal : allow the development of tiny F-Code drivers for each optional components (you know, PCI is supposed to support that) Of course the main part should stay C/Assembly for speed, even the display part (damn, those OpenFirmware based scrolls are too slow !!!)
cheers,
T.
- To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
Thierry Deval wrote:
Are you talking about a BIOS ? I think you're well beyond the subject...
T. To be perfectly honest, BIOS is really a bit of an extra layer of stuff that not many people, (not even programmers), want.
Yes I have gone beyond the subject, but what I wish to create is an 'OS on a chip'. Unfortunately for you guys, you get all my spam, since the OpenBIOS are the only people who can support me on this venture.
My proposition is to take a whopping great EPROM chip, + a whacking small OS Microkernel, ( < 64 Kb ), and bundle them together in one single machine.
Here is an outline of my proposed architectural idea:
+-----------+ +------------+ +------------+ | | | | | | | Coldfire | | "" | | "" | | CPU | | "" | | "" | etc -> | | | | | | +-----------+ +------------+ +------------+ | | | | | | ---| |------------| |------------| |------ Shared Bus Topology ---| |------------| |------------| |------ | | | | | | +--- ---+ +---- -----+ +---- -----+ | | | Flash | | 64K | | I/O PIC | | HDD | | EEPROM | | | +------------+ +------------+ +--| |--+ | |
The Flash HDD is available from Bimicro Networks at:
http://www.bitmicro.com/products_fc.html
64K EEPROMs can be obtained from motorola, as can PICs DDR RAM etc.
That is about as far as the idea goes at present.
All the best, Gavin.
Gavin Robert Brewer wrote:
Yes I have gone beyond the subject, but what I wish to create is an 'OS on a chip'. Unfortunately for you guys, you get all my spam, since the OpenBIOS are the only people who can support me on this venture.
=) Mee tooo! To an extent... I realize that the low-level istruction set of the processor should only be known to the firmware of the system. The firmware, in turn, should support safe and typed languages so that layers of hardware complexity such as paging systems and protection can be eliminated.
Instead of putting a filesystem in the BIOS (PUKE!!!) I would design the filesystem so that the first few blocks on the volume contains the code to operate the filesystem! This way any volume can be put in any computer and accessed by ANY operating system. =)
x86 is not a viable platform for OS development, I have found. =( I would like to start a company to design and devel hardware that doesn't suck.
I'm using this yahoo glub:
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/techieknights
as a staging area for my efforts. Right now the biggest issue is the business plan. I have about 50% of it, I need all the help I can get to do the other half. =)
* Gavin Robert Brewer gavinbr@gavinbr.worldonline.co.uk [010828 17:34]:
Thierry Deval wrote:
Are you talking about a BIOS ? I think you're well beyond the subject...
T. To be perfectly honest, BIOS is really a bit of an extra layer of stuff that not many people, (not even programmers), want.
It does not make sense to include all lowlevel startup functions in the operating system kernel like ram controller or cpu caches initialization. This will enhance the complexity of the Operating system kernel to a state where it's not really maintainable at all. This stuff has to be done for every motherboard/hardware combination seperately which blows up everything without any advantage.
Yes I have gone beyond the subject, but what I wish to create is an 'OS on a chip'. Unfortunately for you guys, you get all my spam, since the OpenBIOS are the only people who can support me on this venture.
Still making a cut between lowlevel code and OS code like multitasking/scheduling algorithms makes perfect sense. It's just 2 different programs running from flash with the one starting the other. Try to look at it from a project maintainer's point of view. Those people taking care of how the operating system performs do not want to take care of dozens of ramcontrollers to be initialized before they can even start their algorithm work. This is different with embedded systems where you have exactly one hardware and you can rely on it without any unprobable initialization functionality.
Best regards, Stefan
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
It does not make sense to include all lowlevel startup functions in the operating system kernel like ram controller or cpu caches initialization. This will enhance the complexity of the Operating system kernel to a state where it's not really maintainable at all. This stuff has to be done for every motherboard/hardware combination seperately which blows up everything without any advantage.
it is even worse than that. There are things you can not probe (such as which superio is on the board due to superio braindamage) which the bios just has to know is there. So the bios has to be customized to the mainboard, there is no choice. I don't like that either.
ron
- To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Gavin Robert Brewer wrote:
Why not redirect the boot sequence to a log file? Then you would not get all the nasty looking spam; but you could take a look at it, (if you wanted).
first, this has nothing to do with bios. Let's keep the list on topic for a while :-)
second, if you haven't mounted a disk writeable, how can you redirect to a file.
ron
- To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
Ronald G Minnich wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Gavin Robert Brewer wrote:
Why not redirect the boot sequence to a log file? Then you would not get all the nasty looking spam; but you could take a look at it, (if you wanted).
first, this has nothing to do with bios. Let's keep the list on topic for a while :-)
Yes it has. Are we not looking at booting Linux straight from power-up? Remember, it is **Award-BIOS** which activates the bootloader, which in turn uncompresses the boot image, and blah.
LinuxBIOS should go one step further, in my view. It should just be a very basic set of primitives which call up the bootloader, perhaps even integrating the bootloader into itself. Think laterally for a moment...
Who knows? perhaps even the Kernel image may become burnt into EEPROM and distributed as part of an embedded solution for industry. Then LinuxBIOS would no longer be BIOS, but something far more integrated.
second, if you haven't mounted a disk writeable, how can you redirect to a file.
Wait. Stop & Think. Engage imagination chip. (Seldom used amongst calif. techies):
You store the messages in RAM. After the disk is mounted, you then scribble the data direct from ram to a log-file on disc. Easy.
Oh, and HDDs are on the way OUT in industry. Nearly all savvy industrial techies know that Flash memories are the way to go...
try visiting http://www.bitmicro.com (be astounded).
The fuel for Revolution is all out there, ready to ignite.
You had better watch where you are sitting, Ron <|:-p
All the best, Gav. - To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Gavin Robert Brewer wrote:
Yes it has. Are we not looking at booting Linux straight from power-up?
No we are not, at least not in openbios. openbios boots into forth from power up. From there it can boot Plan 9 for all we care.
LinuxBIOS should go one step further, in my view. It should just be a very basic set of primitives which call up the bootloader, perhaps even integrating the bootloader into itself. Think laterally for a moment...
We already did. You are about two years behind in your thinking. And you're on the wrong list. Plus we use linux as the bootloader in linuxbios. Or etherboot. Or lots of stuff, any elf image will do. AND THIS DISCUSSION DOESN'T BELONG ON THIS LIST.
Who knows? perhaps even the Kernel image may become burnt into EEPROM and distributed as part of an embedded solution for industry. Then LinuxBIOS would no longer be BIOS, but something far more integrated.
been there, done that. See the linuxbios web page. You can buy products that do this today (www.linuxlabs.com). They're using our stuff. You need to do a wider survey.
Wait. Stop & Think. Engage imagination chip. (Seldom used amongst calif. techies):
You store the messages in RAM. After the disk is mounted, you then scribble the data direct from ram to a log-file on disc. Easy.
Think it through some more, and you'll see why that idea sucks. Course I've done that too, but that's another story.
you really need a better email persona. You really need to figure out what you're talking about a bit before you talk. You really need to stop slandering people because they live in ca. or might be a techie.
Just cut the nonsense, do a bit of reading about where the various projects are, then come back with some new ideas. I haven't seen any yet.
And, please stick to the openbios topic, which is implementing Open Firmware in a GPL way. Or let people subscribe to Eric mailing list and talk there -- you're wasting bandwidth on this list. If you don't like that, just unsubscribe.
ron
- To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
Wait. Stop & Think. Engage imagination chip. (Seldom used amongst calif. techies):
Actually, I'm a New England Asshole ;)
You store the messages in RAM. After the disk is mounted, you then scribble the data direct from ram to a log-file on disc. Easy.
Yup
Oh, and HDDs are on the way OUT in industry. Nearly all savvy industrial techies know that Flash memories are the way to go...
I thought there was a problem if you had to write data alot it whould fry them prematurly. Not to mention the expense for a large amount of such storage in this day and age.
~Jason
--
- To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
Why not redirect the boot sequence to a log file? Then you would not getall the nasty looking spam; but you could take a look at it, (if you wanted).
Why not just have a hot key and/or a setting to turn off the hiding if troubleshooting is going on. Intel MB's have been doing this for years now. I think it's quite ideal and you can replace the graphic with your own if you want.
Form and function are two sides of the same jewel in my view. It HAS to look good.
i've seen some text based interfaces that look quite good using ansi graphics and colord text, etc... Just because something is text doesn't mean it looks bad. I do admit the Linux Kernel bootup is pretty ugly, but I think that is more a function of it being rather disorganized and chaotic.
Textual interfaces are pretty much obsolete.
Absolutly not! Before everyone gets in a huff, let me explain. Say there are people that use a computer as part of their job but they really don't *use* the computer like a (for lack of a better word) geek does. Yes, these people do exist, and I have to support them every day. These people do not unserstand the difference between a monitor and the box on the floor. To them, the computer *is* the monitor. They are *confused* and *lost* in a graphical environment. It may sound funny and sad but there is just too much to look at and too much complexity for them in the use of a graphical environment. It is easy for me when they call up and have trouble with our console based Point of Sale application "Press one, press enter, what does it say, press escape...etc." But god help me if I have to explain how to delete a print job in an NT print que. "First you click here, now scroll up and wait for it to fold out....no click it with the RIGHT mouse button...no, your other right...etc..." I wish we still had the old SCO boxes and used the lp commands ;) This may not be BIOS related, but I hope you get the idea.
You should be able to emulate them at will, but the quality of the system fonts is often poor, and given today's PCs, could be a LOT better. Whilst we are at it, we might as well have a GUI at startup.
Sure, but don't let that gui be an excuse for bad design *or* lack of functionality.
Cheers,
~Jason
--
- To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
Form and function are two sides of the same jewel in my view. It HAS to look good.
i've seen some text based interfaces that look quite good using ansi graphics and colord text, etc... Just because something is text doesn't mean it looks bad. I do admit the Linux Kernel bootup is pretty ugly, but I think that is more a function of it being rather disorganized and chaotic.
GREAT! You have successfully traced a feature of the linux operating system to its real cause.
You have taken your first step back towards the light side of the source. =) (I also must congratulate you on your recognition of the inferiority of certain bad GUIs.)
That its Ugly bootup is a result of a chaotic kernel.
Now lets see if you can make the next step and recognise that chaotic software is inferior to well-orgainized software and thereby recognise this as a fundamental flaw in LiNuKs itself.
If you can do that I'll pronounce you cured of irrational Linux fanaticism! =)
Now lets see if you can make the next step and recognise that chaotic software is inferior to well-orgainized software and thereby recognise this as a fundamental flaw in LiNuKs itself.
If you can do that I'll pronounce you cured of irrational Linux fanaticism! =)
Absolutly! =) I'm the last person on earth to be a bandwagon jumper just 'cause it's kewl. It's funny when you mention Plan 9 for instance in some linux cicles and people are like, "what's that?"
To think of an x86 bios with a forth interpreter and so on... How cool is that! =) SUN better watch out for their workstation sales when this project is nearing compleation.
Cheers,
~Jay
--
- To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Gavin Robert Brewer wrote:
Textual interfaces are pretty much obsolete.
*funny* I guess you've never used an ATM? Or any piece of hardware with a 20x4 LCD display?
Please, your lack of knowledge is astounding. Do some research before assuming that just because XXX is going on and you've thought of YYY, that's the way the world should work.
And, for the record, I have both an Intel laptop and a Mac on my desk. I also have a NeXT about 3ft from me, and two Sun boxes down the hall (including the one I'm composing this mail on).
I think it's great that you want to create a box that boots into graphical mode, but it's already been done (by NeXT in 1989 and Apple waaay before that), and my SuSE 7.1 machine boots up into graphical mode (after the BIOS init).
Therefore, I believe that this is not the list for these sorts of discussions. Like Ron said, you can start your own, or move the discussion to your site. BIOS is for intializing hardware, and therefore needs to do the bare minimum.
Chris.
-- chris maresca internet systems architect -- www.chrismaresca.com
"linux, only up 138 days, because california has flaky power... "
- To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Gavin Robert Brewer wrote:
Not wishing to be negative, but I would really like to ask Linus as to why he chose to have all that spam redirected to the screen at bootup. It is'nt very eyecatching.
You only get important information upon Linux boot. You may choose verbose boot with the "debug" kernel argument or silent one with the "quiet" argument. It's all up to you.
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Gavin Robert Brewer wrote:
Not wishing to be negative, but I would really like to ask Linus as to why he chose to have all that spam redirected to the screen at bootup. It is'nt very eyecatching.
It's "the way we've always done it". Plus a lot of us prefer it as opposed to the windows way where you really can't tell what's happening.
I've done timings and the output of stuff has very little to do with boot time. Time is lost in other ways.
ron
- To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
Ronald G Minnich wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Gavin Robert Brewer wrote:
Not wishing to be negative, but I would really like to ask Linus as to why he chose to have all that spam redirected to the screen at bootup. It is'nt very eyecatching.
It's "the way we've always done it". Plus a lot of us prefer it as opposed to the windows way where you really can't tell what's happening.
Oh dear. It was that attitude that has got the PC-Sector into the mess it is in today. I should very much like to forward that one onto Steve Wozniak, and see what HE has to say about it. *chuckle*
Yours, Gavin. - To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Chris Maresca wrote:
There was a post on /. today about a BIOS that boots in .8 sec. That seems to be pretty good... Now all we need to do is speed up linux boot...
we talked about that on the linuxbios list. That was a stupid publicity stunt. .8 sec is actually pretty slow.
ron
- To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@freiburg.linux.de with 'unsubscribe openbios' in the body of the message
-
Alan Grimes -
Chris Maresca -
ebiederman＠lnxi.com -
Gavin Robert Brewer -
Jason Gurtz -
Maciej W. Rozycki -
Ronald G Minnich -
Stefan Reinauer -
Thierry Deval