In-Depth Look At LinuxBIOS 284
DrSkwid writes "With PhoenixBIOS reading your email because of such inordinate boot up times for Windows and other OSs, it was remarked in #plan9 about our 5s boot times using LinuxBIOS. My friend f2f pasted an article from Linux Journal which looks at the basic structure of LinuxBIOS, the origins of LinuxBIOS and how it evolved to its current state. It also covers the platforms supported and the lessons they have learned about trying to marry a GPL project to some of the lowest-level, most heavily guarded secrets that vendors possess."
Motherboard support (Score:5, Insightful)
Will this have any chance of being taken up by a motherboard manuafacturer by default or is this a aftermarket project ? in which case without being installed by a manufacturer no-one is going to even contemplate wiping their "working" bios for an unknown 3rd party of no significant benefit to them
On the bright side (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Already tried...? (Score:4, Insightful)
boot time of no benefit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on! (Score:2, Insightful)
What is the bios for? (Score:4, Insightful)
If we start pushing linux bios, would we be pushing linux as Microsloth pushes Windows?
Does it allow console access via serial port? (Score:5, Insightful)
instead of hauling a monitor over to a machine that won't boot, they could remotely connect via a Portserver or similar. Much easier!
Finally, an admission... (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the most common phrases we heard from chip vendors in the first few years was "we'll never tell you that." "That" being CPU information, chipset information, motherboard information or any combination of the three. The designs for these three systems constitute highly guarded secrets. It seems amazing, even now, that vendors are able to let us build a GPLed BIOS that by its nature exposes some of these secrets.
How was it possible for us to get this type of information? Simple, businesses are not charities. If there is no business case for releasing this information to us, they do not do it. If, however, there is a business case, then it happens?sometimes with astonishing speed.
Read that last paragraph again. The hardware vendors basically say "that's a secret" whether it really is or not. Unless you pay them, or show them that they are losing money, they won't even bother deciding if it's really something that has to be kept secret.
Re:Already tried...? (Score:4, Insightful)
'our code is secure' ; 'Oh wait you want us to show our competitors! Nooo it's a risk to national security'.
Why would we not want to be subjected to all these wonderful qualities without the wait to get into windows?
"Get everything listed and MORE in less than 20 seconds!"
Re:It really is amazing... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not that surprising really . . . I think that instead of open source "market" one might say open standard.
IBM's PC was an open standard and that's a large part of the reason why it dominated the market . . .
It's similar to the VHS VCR. Betamax had better quality but VHS was an open standard, Betamax disappeared as the market became dominated by VHS VCR's. Sony (the creator of Betamax) gave up and joined the VHS crowd. Similar arguments against closed standards can be made against zip drives and microchannel and a host of other things. (Note that zip licensed their technology to others . . . but at that point it was too little to late, the CD rom crushed them from a storage capacity side and they never became mainstream enough to replace the floppy)
It took years for competitors to copy the PC, and now, perhaps the BIOS will soon be commoditized much to the chagrin of the closed standard folks. To stay ahead of the game we may see the BIOS companies try to put more general features (good) in their BIOS's or partner with an 800 pound gorilla (like Microsoft) and try to tie future releases and features of their BIOS to a Microsoft operating system (bad). If the technology can be copied or duplicated with "relative" ease (relative = an amount of effort less than the potential upside) it probably doesn't make sense to create a closed standard . . . unless you're an 800 pound gorilla (Microsoft) . . . and even then, you have to stand on your toes (Linux-piranha).
Re:How can I flash my AwardBIos to run this? (Score:5, Insightful)
You shouldn't. Ok, that's unnecessarily harsh, but as it stands right now LinuxBIOS is primarily for people who are between very and highly technically inclined... Kind of like linux was shortly after it's release. That's why their website "SUCKS," because this isn't yet ready for the KDE crowd. You'd have to be comfortable finding the status of your motherboard [linuxbios.org], downloading and compiling the appropriate files, reflashing your onboard FlashROM, and other nasty, dirty things. I wouldn't consider myself qualified to get their best documented system up and running unless I was between jobs, and even then I consider it iffy.
Linux BIOS as it stands is useful for a few specific things: Building clusters and building robots. Any embedded system running on linux on a traditional motherboard can be sped up significantly by using Linux BIOS. But it does require quite a bit of work and knowledge to get it running... If you want a computer pre-flashed with LinuxBIOS, you can purchase one [linuxbios.org] off the shelf, but I would be hesitant to try and build one without a lot of time and / or skill.
It isn't that the LinuxBIOS people don't want that kind of end-user friendliness, it's just that the project is still in the mode of getting things working at all, let alone in an easy fashion.
Secondly, as you might have figured out, it is not a drop-in BIOS replacement. Your computer enters the boot phase and exists the other side with Linux running. You'll not get Windows to run directly on that, and I'd be surprised if it ran virtually (as the BIOS windows is expecting doesn't exist). If anyone here has experience running Windows on a LinuxBIOS, please let us know.
None of this is to say that the goals of the project are bad. Imagine being able to boot to command line in 3 seconds! You could start an ssh session before your monitor was done de-gaussing. Attach a 4 line LED display to one of these motherboards, and you would have a great tool for debugging network problems. Or just speed things up significantly, and spend more time doing what you are supposed to be doing, with the added bonus of being able to shut down your computer when you are done (gasp!). It just needs a lot more work, and a lot of developer support. I'm glad to see it posted to Slashdot, as the exposure might net a few more eager helpers.
Re:Already tried...? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, what Microsoft has ALREADY done, through pressure on Phoenix BIOS [slashdot.org] (submitted by yours truly) and on AMI BIOS [slashdot.org] (and probably every other BIOS maker), has far more sinister overtones.
The purpose of the new Microsoft-enabled BIOSes is to enable a new kind of "trusted" software and files that ARE UNUSABLE if the owner of the machine alters any of the "protected" elements of his computer.
Lets say you write some sort of upgrade for your computer, or you don't like something about how your computer runs and you want to change it (or someone else write such code and you want to install it). Code that changes the BIOS. What the new Trust system does is detect that you changed your computer and any "secure" software and data are unreadable. The music you downloaded will be unusable. The image processing software you had installed can no longer run. The spreadsheet you just bought can not install. Your favorite game can not connect to the server. The new "secure" e-mail Microsoft is advertizing will be unreadable.
But here's the REALLY scary part. Another slashdot story reported Cisco Working to Block Viruses at the Router. [slashdot.org] What the story missed was the fact that these new Cisco routers are based on Trusted Computing. That don't actually do anything to block viruses. What they can do is use Trusted Computing to verify that you have specific software installed, such as approved anti-virus software and an approved firewall. The way they "fight viruses" is by refusing to permit you an internet connection unless it verifies you are compliant. Well, if you changed your BIOS at all, or if you changed anything else about your computer, then the Trust chip in your computer reports a "failed" response. The router cannot verify that the approved anti-virus software and/or firewall are installed. You are therefore DENIED an internet connection.
The president's Cyber Security advisor gave a speech at an industry conference and he called on ISP's to install these routers and in effect to impose Trusted Computing compliance onto all of their customers as part of the terms of service for internet access.
If you try to change or control your system in any way then none of the new software will run, none of the new files will be readable, and ultimately you may be denied internet access. In effect you would no longer own your computer.
There is only one thing wrong with Trusted Computing - you are FORBIDDEN to know your own key that is secreted inside the Trust chip. When you don't know your own key then other people can turn your computer against you and lock you in or lock you out of anything. If you DID know this key you would be in full control of your computer.
When it comes to Trusted Computing simply demand to know your key. If they refuse to let you know your own key then tell them to go to hell.
-
Re:Clustering (Score:5, Insightful)
Great point. This is functionality sorely missed in the vast majority of x86 systems for everyone that needs to run headless servers.
The Remote Serial Console HOWTO [tldp.org] is a superb document, but following it only provides you with a system administrable via serial console once the bootloader (LILO, Grub) has been initialised. This means that everything before the bootloader is not accessible via serial console.
Having to install a video card and attach a monitor and keyboard to box in order to modify BIOS settings is major pain in the arse.
Re:It really is amazing... (Score:3, Insightful)
LinuxISP (Score:2, Insightful)
I would work on systems which support an ISP which supports only open source users. There is no customer support for anything but an open source OS. Your network connection fails and you use Windows? Too bad. Your network connection fails and you're using Linux? Check ifconfig and route. That's customer support. After that you're on your own. It's open source. Figure it out.
Sure the service itself wouldn't save each user much (maybe $2-$3 less per month) but think what it does to the network as a whole. No longer will ISPs be able to support a clueless user base by relying on the monthly tithe from the competent users. No longer will ISPs be able to afford the latest TCPA enabled hardware by leeching from the open source users. No longer will ISPs be able to sign overpriced agreements with MS support by using open source dollars.
And one could have email@opensourcenetwork.net