Quote:
Originally Posted by jtsn
(Post 5210735)
"Wintel" developed EFI to boot Windows on Intel Itanium. The distinction between Microsoft and Intel makes no sense in this context.
|
Your point has some merit, considering that Microsoft controls licensing of the FAT file-system used in UEFI. However, Intel officially claims the intellectual rights to EFI. Of course, UEFI pretends to be an open standard, which I think is worse than no standard, because companies then use proprietary methods and call them a stadard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtsn
(Post 5210735)
Actually it can use them and it does. Without "Legagy ROMs" supported by a "compatibility support module" (CSM) most PCs manufactured in the past years won't boot at all. Of course there is also a new EFI ROM format containing EFI device drivers which must be signed by Microsoft, this is not in wide use yet.
|
I expect compatibility support to be gone just as soon as computer retailers feel they can get away with removing that. The reality is we're moving closer and closer to a Windows only PC. I suspect that we will eventually have to buy "Linux" PCs separately from Windows PCs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtsn
(Post 5210735)
UEFI is already a typical single-tasking Disk Operating System on its own and it looks like it has been developed by Microsoft. So the moniker "MS-DOS" fits perfectly. Unlike a traditional 16 bit BIOS UEFI depends on using a disk, the "EFI system partition" is stored on the hard drive.
|
If UEFI is an MS-DOS, it is a poor replacement. For example it does not even read the ISO 9660 file-system on a CD or DVD. It only can read the FAT32 EFI partition stored in an El-Torito boot record of an optical disc. When I see people providing utilities to set disk parameters and flash firmware running on UEFI instead of MS-DOS then I will believe that UEFI has really become as functional as MS-DOS and BIOS. So far companies seem to be implementing what they like of UEFI and leaving out whatever they feel is inconvenient or unprofitable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtsn
(Post 5210735)
The Windows boot selector is only intended to select a Windows installation to boot. Also this would compromise "Secure Boot".
Just set a new firmware default using BCDEDIT.
|
How does allowing a user to choose to boot what they want compromise secure boot? Couldn't the boot manager allow users to install certificates for what they want to boot, just like the certificates for the Windows boot manager? Security is always the excuse for taking away liberty.
People have tried to make the Windows boot manager respect the firmware default with mixed results. In some cases Windows re-installs itself as the firmware default (or the computer UEFI firmware does that). This is another case where nobody knows whom to blame because both Microsoft and computer manufacturers don't document exactly how their software works.
I will admit that I have not used UEFI yet. The only computer that I got with UEFI would not boot Windows 7 in UEFI mode. It came with Windows 8 (I would have chosen Windows 7 if that was allowed). The computer retailer was not interested in helping me at all. So, I changed it to use BIOS booting and the BIOS firmware.
To end on a positive note, although we disagree about some things, you obviously have well thought out opinions and persuasive arguments. I tend to be a skeptic. When I don't have a lot of information I sometimes take contrary positions just to hear the opposite side of the story.
I've been writing software in the computer industry since 1978, and dealing with "standards" and the reality of how they are actually implemented by commercial interests. A classic example is the RS232 standard. IBM and other large companies implemented that standard however they chose and basically left it up to the small fish to figure out how to deal with it.
I am very concerned about whether retail computer hardware will continue to be Linux friendly. It will boil down to whether hardware and software developers will provide Linux drivers or release the information needed for open source developers to write their own drivers. Actually, I'm even concerned about how well new computers will continue to support Windows 7. MIcrosoft obviously wants to sell Windows 8 and computer retailers don't like supporting anything but what they are currently selling (if even that).