Talk:Coreboot/Archive 1

Unclear discription
I read the article, but I havnt understood the following.

What does Core boot do ? What is the point of installing it ? ie. What are the benifits ?

Perhaps another section ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.202.175 (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Misleading introduction
LinuxBIOS doesn't replace the standard BIOS with a Linux kernel, it doesn't even necessarily boot a Linux kernel at all.
 * Article currently reflects the second point. "LinuxBIOS is primarily Linux - about 10 lines of patches to the current Linux kernel. Additionally, the startup code - about 500 lines of assembly and 5000 lines of C - executes 16 instructions to get into 32-bit mode and then performs DRAM and other hardware initialization required before Linux can take over." from the project's home page more or less contradicts the first point. -Elvey


 * Fixed. --134.2.18.3 10:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Relationships
Extensible Firmware Interface (and this article) could use some editing to identify and explain the relationship between it, Treacherous Computing (AKA Trusted Computing) and LinuxBIOS. If I understood it, I'd write it. What I get is that, in theory, the BIOS could play a part in locking the hardware of a computer so that only Treacherous software could run on it. Does EFI facilitate or hinder that goal? -Elvey
 * As far as I can tell that has nothing to do with LinuxBIOS --Lost Goblin 01:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it does but indirectly:
 * IBM does not suport linux bios because of that
 * Note: IBM does not support linuxbios/coreboot because it is licensed under the GNU Public License and is maintained outside of IBM. Instead, they are using SLOF on their CELL based platforms, which is BSD licensed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.182.99 (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You could flash your bios chip and bypass the Trusted Computing bios &mdash; unsigned comment posted on 04:54, 13 April 2006 by 134.2.18.3
 * The point of TC instead of regular DRM is that it can't be removed because it's all hardware. a thing 06:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

IBM, according to one of their firmware development departments, does not support coreboot because it is a GPL project and thus it is easier for them to stick to proprietary (some times open sourced) firmware implementations. 95.208.161.19 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

Relationship with Open Firmware
The Open Firmware article says LinuxBIOS distributes Open Firmware source. So is LinuxBIOS an implementation of Open Firmware? Is Open Firmware used as a payload? Does Open Firmware include LinuxBIOS code, like the OpenBIOS project? The whole situation is confusing and I'd like to see it explained clearly in the article. 128.158.145.51 21:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Open Firmware is nowadays rather a bootloader/payload which requires a "low level firmware" underneith it to initialize the machine. Exception: This is different on the OLPC, because it's hardware is completely static and really really simple compared to other systems. So LinuxBIOS is the Low Level Firmware, whereas the Linux kernel, Open firmware, FILO, etherboot etc are the bootloader/payload. One does not work without the other ... 88.66.15.3 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the point?
Yes this is the point. The FSF is not concerned, that there may be a BIOS standard. Please revert. --mms (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies on my wording, but i didn't mean "Standard" as in "A Standard", but as to mean, the usually implemented BIOS in any system that then changes to LinuxBIOS. "It is the standard" as opposed to "According to the BIOS Standard". Proprietary is simply wrong given that there is no standard, ownership or required implementation. -- Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess you don't know the GNU Project very well. They have no problem with a program which is so widely used that it is considered a standard. Take the Apache web server for example. The Free Software Foundation has started the Campaign for Free BIOS only because the standard BIOS are proprietary. Please read free software and/or Overview of the GNU System. --mms (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, i'm afraid i can't see the post this is a response to. If you'd care to respond to my comment though, we can work out exactly how the line should be phrased. In relation to your illogically placed statement though, "BIOS" is/are not proprietary. Firstly, the fact they can create an implementation without incurring any licensing means it has no owner of whom it is proprietary software of. Secondly, Wikipedia is not here to generalize about the many thousands of seperately developed implementation of BIOS software just because of claims made by the GNU Project. -- Jimmi Hugh (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the description on the web site of the FSF. --mms (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As i've already stated, the opinion of the FSF has absolutely no bearing on the facts. -- Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jimmi Hugh, you edited the last appearance of proprietary away with the comment "Semantically correct, but serves no use but to attempt to sound negative." On the discussion page to the linked article is a discussion going on about whether this article is biased because the reader feels he doesn't want to use proprietary software. I don't think this is the right yardstick. If a software producer doesn't deliver the source he refuses his costumers to really own the software. There are also certain legal restrictions which infringe the definition of free software. With this WP-relevant definition one can easily decide if a software is proprietary or free. Look for this entry in the info boxes. The proposed euphemism "commercial software" is not a solution. The user doesn't feel if a software is commercial. Commercial software could be free or proprietary. Every well known free software product is commercial software.

The point of this article should be that the "standard" BIOS are proprietary and that's why the FSF has started the campaign to develop a free replacement. --mms (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This comment is not only wrong, but simply an opinion that shouldn't effect the content anyway. I'm sure you don't have the exact technical specifications to every item you own around your house, but you wouldn't say you don't own them, because you have the final product, it is a fact that people own software whether they have the source code or not. The source is only wanted by a small percentage of people and even fewer would actually make good use of it. I don't really understand the end of your point, clearly you don't understand the actual definition of proprietary and just think it is a catch all "bad" term for the evil empire the FSF so bravely fights. Being proprietary is niether a good or bad thing, it's simply a fact that was inappropriately thrown into that sentence in order to make it sound negative. As i have stated before, the FSF's opinion has absolutely no effect on the fact's in the article and the tone should not be changed to suport them either. Keep it neutral. Also, most standard BIOS are not proprietary, plain and simple, yes some may fall under the definition, some even fall under the FSF's anti-free definition, but no where near all of them. -- Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, "own" has become too imprecise when talking about software. You've given a reasonable argument for the use of the word, and there are also reasonable arguments against the use of the word.  For example, if I own it, why can't I do what I like with it (copy, share, decompile, modify the binary, distribute a work based on the software, etc.).  Sure, I "have" a copy, but it's licensed to me, not given to me.  So you're not wrong there, but it's usually worth avoiding that word and finding something more precise.


 * About the number of people who care about getting source code, this has to be considered in a group context. Since I don't program, I don't care about me having access to the source code to Mozilla Firefox, but I care strongly that *everyone* having access.  I care that anyone, potentially, could audit the code for privacy issues, and I care that if the lead developers took it in a direction that was bad for users, another group could redistribute the bulk of the software minus the annonying mis-features.


 * Back to the word "proprietary", it is not used as an English adjective. In this context, it's a term of art.  This is pretty well explained by making that word a link to the proprietary software article (which could indeed be made clearer). --Gronky (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Software licensing is a fair point in respects to ownership. Often you do own a license and not the software, but you can often own a copy of the software with rights todo whatever you wish, as is the case in a major amount of BIOS software, which i have edited without access to the source code on many systems. This of course being contrary to Wikipedia's own definition of proprietary software. Unfortunately that has no relation to this article. A BIOS is not owned by anyone, it is the generic name for the interface/firmware idea that LinuxBIOS implements, and the very fact that LinuxBIOS is self proclaimed as non-proprietary means that the idea of a BIOS is not proprietary. -- Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Why the name change
Does anyone have a link indicating why they changed their name? --Gronky (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Rationale's in the announcement message. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've added that ref to the intro now. --Gronky (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)