On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 10:44:21AM +0200, Fred . wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Gleb Natapov gleb@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 10:26:31PM +0200, Fred . wrote:
And in terms of standards compliance?
I know proprietary BIOS have advantage when it comes to SMBIOS due to the implementation in SeaBIOS lagging behind several versions.
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Peter Stuge peter@stuge.se wrote:
Fred . wrote:
How is SeaBIOS working towards the non-technical goals of the project?
This is not so clear. I'm not even sure that there are non-technical goals for the project.
Competing with commercial BIOS products would require a company to put a SeaBIOS-based PC firmware to market, quite likely in concert with coreboot. I know of one company which offers among other things coreboot services, Sage Engineering, who are quite active in the coreboot community. http://www.se-eng.com/coreboot.html
But even so you can see that the business model is different from commercial BIOS products, and already this small difference presents a non-technical challenge.
SeaBIOS lacks documentation. It lacks communication. The website is not updated with news about the development. There is no mention of what's new, whats planned, etc.
Now I am curious what other BIOSes give you all that? In all that points Seabios in not different from most other open source project.
-- Gleb.
Perhaps other BIOS have private channels to make such communications directly to their customers.
SeaBIOS customers pretty much define SeaBIOS roadmap, so perhaps such communication is unnecessary.
Or perhaps they don't need to due to having been in the BIOS game pretty much since it started.
Or perhaps they do not care because most of the BIOS "customers" do not aware of its existence or that they have an alternative?
I think information, documentation, roadmaps, public announcements, timely communication would be good.
-- Gleb.
-
Gleb Natapov