Noodlenose notes a thread up on the Ubuntu forums, where a user is questioning the practices of hardware manufacturer Foxconn. The user describes how his new Foxconn motherboard caused his Linux install to freeze and fire off weird kernel errors. He disassembles the BIOS and concludes that a faulty DSDT table is responsible for the errors. Even though the user makes Foxconn aware of the problem, they refuse to correct it, as 'it doesn't support Linux' and is only 'Microsoft certified.' The user speculates darkly on Foxconn's motives. Read the forum, read the code, and come to your own conclusions. "I disassembled my BIOS to have a look around, and while I won't post the results here, I'll tell you what I did find. They have several different tables, a group for Windows XP and Vista, a group for 2000, a group for NT, Me, 95, 98, etc. that just errors out, and one for LINUX. The one for Linux points to a badly written table that does not correspond to the board's ACPI implementation.' The worst part is Foxconn's insistence that the product is ACPI compliant because their tables passed to Windows work, and that Microsoft gave the the magic WHQL certification."
Exactly. Vote for Linux support with your money. The problem is, there aren't nearly enough Linux users to make a dent they will notice. If it makes you feel any better, I bought a (crappy) Foxconn board once and won't be buying one again.
People used to say the same thing about firefox. There aren't enough users to make a difference. Look at where we are now. Firefox is probably around 20% market share, and it's too prominent for web site designers to just sit and ignore it. The changes aren't going to happen over night. With all the inroads Linux is making in the UMPC market, and lowend computer market, it's only a matter of time before hardware manufacturers have to wake up and start supporting it.
Exactly. Vote for Linux support with your money. The problem is, there aren't nearly enough Linux users to make a dent they will notice. If it makes you feel any better, I bought a (crappy) Foxconn board once and won't be buying one again.
I beg to differ, desktop linux users != linux users.
I purchase 40-50 systems a year as a one man show hosting company, 100% of those systems MUST be able to run linux, and run it without issue. Only 4 of my computers run a GUI, and only 1 of those runs windows, and only to play games, and that machine can dual boot to linux as well.
So yes, I do vote with every dollar I spend by purchasing only linux compatible hardware, but I also am realistic and research what I buy before I buy it. Maybe that is why I have a mountain of Gigabyte, Tyan, Adaptec, 3ware and SuperMicro hardware.
I can't tell you how many machines I've built for myself and others, and the one thing I never cheap out on is the MoBo. You've got to have a solid foundation if you want to build a nice house and this is no different. Foxconn was never a brand I considered to be high quality, but it's even farther down on my list now.
It appears that within an hour there was a workaround posted on the same forum.
Okay, so ten out of ten for Linux and Open Source, but minus several million for needing to tweak perfectly good code to compensate for deliberate sabotage by a BIOS.
Why is this modded Troll? That's exactly what you should do. I know when I'm building a machine in the future, I sure as hell won't be buying a Foxconn mobo (not that I was planning to anyway).
I would almost guarantee that somewhere inside the next computer you build will be Foxconn logo. They are a hugely popular supplier of mobo components like usb or network ports. Not buying Foxconn is definitely an active pass time.
If they are doing tricks like this, their products are probably crappy in general and will not be stable on Windows either. Also, how about later versions of Windows? Or just later service packs? Will it work properly then? Nobody knows.
Sure, caveat emptor. Mark it one star on Newegg. But there are huge problems with that.
Foxconn makes bits for hundreds of rebranders, so it's harder than you think to avoid it. And, whose mobo is in yeah random OEM PC?
Then there is the problem with evangelism. Joe comes to you and says "Vista sucks". You hand him a Hardy Heron disk? Or, do we ask him for a BIOS dump because Linux works with some Windows PCs, but has random reboots with others?
I'm a computer repair technician - if you're in this business you know that Foxconn is a low-cost sub-quality motherboard manufacturer, and their product is unreliable at best.
Regardless of what operating system you prefer to use, don't buy Foxconn, unless you like throwing your hard earned money away on something that will probably fail in roughly two years.
Now that I said that I'm sure there is going to be someone who thinks that Foxconn is great because they've never had a problem with their one Foxconn product. That's great if you've had success - but I've seen more systems fail with their products than other brands.
there is more than one motherboard manufacturer. Foxconn is more than welcome to take a FISS approach with regards to their customer base: the market will issue any required adjustments to their attitude.
In my workplace we run Windows, OS X, and Linux. I have the expectation of being able to use Linux on any x86 kit we buy. Absent an explanation or attitude change from this vendor, I won't recommend their kit here for Windows use either. That seems somewhat important so I'll repeat it:
I will not buy Foxconn kit for Windows use if Linux compatibility is impaired.
This is important and I want to expound on it. I work in a Microsoft shop. Really, it's IIS this, MSSQL that,.NET for all dev, and we've all got the latest and greatest Office suite. Strangely, we've heard rumors that our software is going to be tested Vista, but QA hasn't received a Vista machine, yet. With all of that out of the way, I use Linux in various ways on many of our test computers. Mostly, it is just boot CDs, such as Partimage Is Not Ghost and Ultimate Boot CD. So, just because hardware is meant for Windows doesn't mean that it will never see another OS. Hardware interoperability on the software level is necessary.
On another note, I've encountered Foxconn boards in the past... usually broken and being replaced.
First, Foxconn's hardware isn't the only with DSDT errors. Every use a Dell? HP? Considering how sloppily lots of this BIOS code is written, it's a miracle anything works at all. These errors only mean that he's stuck using APM in place of ACPI. If the user wanted a decent motherboard, he'd have bought it from ASUS, Gigabyte, MSI, etc.
It's not some conspiracy, it's a cheap motherboard vendor using a defective BIOS that doesn't give crap about it's customers. Really, how's that not normal?
Although this vendor seems definitely not trying to support Linux with it's BIOS, the hard truth is that it's not so easy even for those who try. For more information, there is currently a thread on the LKML disussing this [lkml.org] and how to improve the situation.
In particular, latest kernels claim to be every versions of Windows at the same time, and not Linux! That's not easy to handle for the BIOS writer...
They have several different tables, a group for Windws XP and Vista, a group for 2000, a group for NT, Me, 95, 98, etc. that just errors out, and one for LINUX.
The one for Linux points to a badly written table that does not correspond to the board's ACPI implementation, causing weird kernel errors, strange system freezing, no suspend or hibernate, and other problems, using my modifications below, I've gotten it down to just crashing on the next reboot after having suspended, the horrible thing about disassembling any program is that you have no commenting, so it's hard to tell which does what, but I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a copy of Vista just to get the crashing caused by Foxconn's BIOS to stop, I am not going to be terrorized.
----- How to fix:
Get Intel's BIOS ACPI source compiler:
sudo apt-get install iasl
Dump your DSDT table:
sudo cat/sys/firmware/acpi/tables/DSDT > dsdt.dat
Disassemble it:
iasl -d dsdt.dat
Open it in Gedit:
gedit dsdt.dsl
Fix Foxconn sabotage:
Find, the section that starts out with
Code:
If (_OSI ("Windows 2000"))
{
Store (0x04, OSVR)
}
Go down til you get to the first
Code:
}
Else
{
Past that you should see Linux alongside Windows NT, which is above another Else that leads to Windows Me.
Should look like:
Code:
If (MCTH (_OS, "Linux"))
{
Store (0x3, OSVR)
}
Change it to: Code:
If (_OSI ("Linux"))
{
Store (Zero, OSVR)
}
Copy the section, and remove it and the other characters (CAREFULLY PRESERVING SYNTAX!!!!)
Then move the Linux section to right underneath Windows 2006 section.
Whatever happened to the concept of generic hardware? It usedc to be that when you bought a printer, it would work with everything. They published the escape codes that you used to change fonts, or draw lines, or whatever. Same thing with modems. You used to be able to grab any modem off the shelf and expect it to work with any computer.
Somewhere along the line, hardware started becoming Windows Only. Modems became Winmodems. Printers became Winprinters. I'm guessing the same thing applies to webcams, and scanners, and other hardware. Now we've got a motherboard with a Windows only BIOS. It sickens me.
Poorly designed, or incomplete bios implementations are not the exception. They are in fact a fairly common occurrence. The DSDT table being missing, incomplete, or just wrong is so common in fact, that a number of solutions exist.
I've just opened official ACPI specs and Microsoft's WHQL is NOWHERE EVEN MENTIONED, let alone of being needed and sufficient criteria of ACPI compliance.
IOW, product is ACI compliant when it works in accordance with specs. Once there is violation found, they can no longer claim ACPI compliance.
I don't work for FoxConn, but I do work for a hardware and software vendor. And here's some insight - as I have been in a situation similar to FoxConn - but being both the accuser and the guilty party at the same time;)
WHQL is kind of a big deal for hardware vendors. The main attractive is being able to add the "certified compatible with Windows" to your product box. Honestly speaking - having the logo there gives you *some* cred with users - at least, with Windows users;)
So your competitors are nibbling at you, the product has to ship, and you need to have the logo in the box. What do you do? If you're already late to market, you hack. You install all the different flavors of Windows, check if it works - if it doesn't and crashes, well, some of that can be attributed to Windows itself. As long as you can install the OS and pass the certification, you're good, the product ships, you get your bonus and a pat in the back for delivering on time.
So say that during testing you DO install Linux and crashes - time for a reality check. If the product spec said "Windows WHQL is a must", and making Linux happy means not passing WHQL - tough luck. Linux won't run.
Or if "fixing the product so it passes WHQL" means "screwing Linux users", well, let me think about that;)
Many engineers working on any given product would like to ship the best possible product - the one that has a 100% compliant ACPI, APM, TPM, you-name-it implementation.
But when time is short and the management chain is breathing down your neck . . . you do whatever it has to be done to be able to ship. And hope that once the product is out there, you WILL be able to go back and clean up the mess - and ship a BIOS upgrade. Everyone is happy.
Sadly, by the time the product shipped, you've been reassigned to other product - and you will only go back to the first one if the Windows crowd complains.
The solution is easy - Linux users to boycott the brand. But then again: if the mobo was designed to be sold to another company to be used as the basis for a product that will only run Windows . . . It isn't like you care a lot about losing the Linux business. This is only the reality - hard as it might seem.
And to the guy that originally found the bug: next time, remember that maybe the guy at the other side of the email exchange also thinks the situation sucks, but he's powerless to change it.
Because if even if he was provided with a full working patch for the BIOS (that doesn't break Windows compatibility), he might need to reapply for WHQL if he patches the BIOS - which means more $$$ and time spent on a product that is already shipping. So.
If you follow the link in the story, you would see that the poster claims the following:
1) Foxconn advertises its motherboard as ACPI compliant thus potentially misleading people into thinking that linux should be able to handle the board. The company does nothing to counter such possible misunderstandings. One could argue that Foxconn is not obliged to do anything of that sort but for customers it is not as simple as "doing homework" as you suggest. Foxconn doesn't say that things break on linux. They only say "works with windows" and "ACPI compliant". The only way to check is to buy and use (at least until this story).
2) The BIOS actively looks for the OS and passes a modified table to linux. It does not even ask the OS to identify itself and go along with that identification. It rather keeps on having random checks to ensure it is running on windows. I can't think of any good reason why they need to do that unless they want to actively break things for linux.
3) The poster smells something fishy in Foxconn's behavior. Right or wrong, I don't know. But if the poster is right in his suspicion (which s/he must believe), it would be a natural, rational and justified behavior to bitch and moan about it rather than just return the board for a refund. Society owes a lot to such "troublemakers".
Have to agree with you here. This is a case of false advertising if it isn't acpi compliant (there is no 90% compliant, or compliant if you use this-or-that software, all that is just non-compliant). I don't know about the slashdot readers that answer with "so what, just return it", but when I am looking for new hardware, I am very happy if people like him figure out who is trying to screw me with false claims, so I can skip these manufacturers from my list.
This is more a case of *Microsoft* not being ACPI compliant. The different versions of Windows have historically broken ACPI in hilariously random and catastrophic ways. You can decompile any BIOS on the market and find a similar table.
If you're willing to rule out malicious sabotage on the part of Foxconn (which would be a pretty ballsy move given that they manufacture Intel's reference motherboards), the fault can probably be traced back to their BIOS vendor - either AMI or Award, if memory serves.
This is more a case of *Microsoft* not being ACPI compliant.
We really don't know if this applies here. After all, the BIOS is feed wrong information to Linux, on purpose, which is different that what it provides to Win-OSs. For all we know, it may be providing correct capability information to Windows and simply providing bad information to Linux.
Ultimately, one has to wonder about the motives when a market segment is purposely excluded. No company in their right mind wants to exclude a potential sale unless there is money to be made elsewhere from that exclusion. Or perhaps, as you originally stated, they are nowhere near ACPI compliant and realized early on Linux highlights this fact. Even so - why add additional code to further break things if they are already broken without a monetary return elsewhere to justify the extra effort.
Is there an industry group that can be contacted in an attempt to force them to remove "ACPI Compliant"? If the original analysis is accurate, clearly they are not ACPI compliant.
Furthermore, since they clearly are breaking ACPI compliance when it detects Linux, and they state ACPI compliance, doesn't this mean they are fraudulently advertising? Seems both the State Attorney General and consumer watchdog groups would like to hear about this.
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday July 25 2008, @07:33AM (#24332795)
The trouble here isn't that it doesn't support Linux, it's that the motherboard appears to be actively sabotaging Linux. That's a really weird thing to do and deserves investigation.
The problem is that Foxconn says its ACPI compliant but its not. It also looks as if they botched Linux by pure purpouse. Why on earth would they have a Linux section in the bios when they dont support it? Something is very smelly here thats for sure. I will keep miles away from Foxconn at my departments no matter if my systems are intended for Windows or Linux.
File this under having done the world a service by publishing their findings.
Now we know that at least some Foxconn motherboards do not work with Linux, and Foxconn is not interested in doing anything about that. That's useful information.
From other posts, I gather that the motherboard actually has a table specifically targeted at Linux, which supplies broken settings. So it's more than Foxconn simply not supporting Linux; they've actually gone and broken things.
Finally, it seems there is already a workaround available. I guess Linux is willing to support Foxconn, even if Foxconn doesn't want it to. And, really, this is a case of "yay, open source!"
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday July 25 2008, @07:42AM (#24332903)
Foxconn has no obligation to support
They went out of their way and expended extra effort to prevent Linux from working on their system. This moved beyond "not supporting", to "breaking" hardware that should have functioned without any effort at all on foxconns part, using what was probably considerable effort on their part to detect what kernel was booting, then developing a fake ACPI table to show only when it detected linux.
The interesting part is that a year or so back, there was an article here about how Microsoft floated a letter around manufacturers asking how to make ACPI harder for Linux to implement. Everyone asserted that we were just paranoid and the only reason ACPI was hard for Linux was because "Linux developers suck", but now it seems we know.
They went out of their way and expended extra effort to prevent Linux from working on their system.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
I have my doubts that Foxconn would deliberately sabotage a potential customer set--but I have no doubts whatsoever that they could try to implement Linux support, screw it up, then decide they're not going to finish. After all, their Windows support also sucks.
The point is that they advertised that they are ACPI compatible when they are not.
And no, "it works on Windows" is not enough to claim ACPI compatibility.
> So let me get this straight. Some small motherboard manufacturer has flawed ACPI tables and > refuses to fix them, therefore they MUST out to sabotage Linux?
Nope. Let's get you straightened out.
The BIOS provides two sets of ACPI tables; one good, working and one which isn't even intended to work. It checks what OS string the kernel hands it when it boots. If Windows, it sends the good tables. If Linux, it sends the deliberately faulty ones.
If Windows, it sends the good tables. If Linux, it sends the deliberately faulty ones.
It's still more likely incompetence than conspiracy. Most motherboard manufacturers don't write their own BIOS - they buy a stock one from AMI/Award and make a few changes for their particular board.
What they most likely did was update the DSDT tables handed out to Windows to reflect their hardware, but didn't bother changing the others. So for Linux (and perhaps Win9x) it just has the generic tables that came with the BIOS, which of course don't work for their particular board.
Of course, a BIOS even having per-OS tables is indicative of poor design, since being OS-independent is kinda the whole point of ACPI. That's more of an issue with whoever wrote the BIOS in the first place, though.
While they're probably not out to actively sabotage Linux, it's still poor customer service to refuse to fix it and claim that everything is working fine. Sadly, getting most board manufacturers to fix their broken DSDT tables (and there are a lot out there) is akin to pulling teeth.
Because the OS's have bugs in their ACPI implementations. So the BIOS provides a special version of function with a workaround for the bug in case it detects the specific OS version.
Let's note this is valid only for proprietary OS's (aka Windows). For F/OSS kernels, the BIOS writer can simply report a bug on non-ACPI compliance, and it's fixed soon after directly in the kernel.
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday July 25 2008, @08:18AM (#24333379)
Off-brand? They don't sell much under their own branding, but Foxconn [wikipedia.org] is one of the biggest computer components manufacturer in the world. Lots of HP and Dells I've seen have Foxconn boards.
An the solution is.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Return it and buy from a manufacturer... no need to disassemble the BIOS, your time is worth more than that.
Re:An the solution is.... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:An the solution is.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:An the solution is.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Vote for Linux support with your money. The problem is, there aren't nearly enough Linux users to make a dent they will notice. If it makes you feel any better, I bought a (crappy) Foxconn board once and won't be buying one again.
I beg to differ, desktop linux users != linux users.
I purchase 40-50 systems a year as a one man show hosting company, 100% of those systems MUST be able to run linux, and run it without issue. Only 4 of my computers run a GUI, and only 1 of those runs windows, and only to play games, and that machine can dual boot to linux as well.
So yes, I do vote with every dollar I spend by purchasing only linux compatible hardware, but I also am realistic and research what I buy before I buy it. Maybe that is why I have a mountain of Gigabyte, Tyan, Adaptec, 3ware and SuperMicro hardware.
Parent
Re:An the solution is.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:An the solution is.... (Score:5, Informative)
no need to disassemble the BIOS, your time is worth more than that.
No self-respecting hacker considers reverse engineering BIOSes a waste of time. Try more along the lines of socialising, bathing, that sort of thing.
Parent
Workaround (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Workaround (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, so ten out of ten for Linux and Open Source, but minus several million for needing to tweak perfectly good code to compensate for deliberate sabotage by a BIOS.
Parent
Re:Workaround (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't know Zaphod Beeblebrox read slashdot.
Parent
Don't Buy Foxconn... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't Buy Foxconn... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Don't Buy Foxconn... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Don't Buy Foxconn... (Score:5, Funny)
Where do we get a list of Foxconn motherboards?
Um, did you try the internet?
Um, well, isn't this the internet?
Parent
Re:Don't Buy Foxconn... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you do not run Linux, don't buy them as well. Could be that you want to run it in 3 years time and then you are forced to buy new hardware.
Parent
Re:Don't Buy Foxconn... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Don't Buy Foxconn... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, caveat emptor. Mark it one star on Newegg. But there are huge problems with that.
Foxconn makes bits for hundreds of rebranders, so it's harder than you think to avoid it. And, whose mobo is in yeah random OEM PC?
Then there is the problem with evangelism. Joe comes to you and says "Vista sucks". You hand him a Hardy Heron disk? Or, do we ask him for a BIOS dump because Linux works with some Windows PCs, but has random reboots with others?
Parent
Re:Don't Buy Foxconn... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
1999 called and wants it's... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:1999 called and wants it's... (Score:5, Funny)
Foxconn apparently.
Parent
Well, the GOOD news is that ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fine. Won't use them for Windows either. (Score:5, Interesting)
In my workplace we run Windows, OS X, and Linux. I have the expectation of being able to use Linux on any x86 kit we buy. Absent an explanation or attitude change from this vendor, I won't recommend their kit here for Windows use either. That seems somewhat important so I'll repeat it:
I will not buy Foxconn kit for Windows use if Linux compatibility is impaired.
Re:Fine. Won't use them for Windows either. (Score:5, Informative)
On another note, I've encountered Foxconn boards in the past... usually broken and being replaced.
Parent
Quick Fix (Score:5, Informative)
Par for the course. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not easy for the BIOS manufacturers (Score:5, Interesting)
Although this vendor seems definitely not trying to support Linux with it's BIOS, the hard truth is that it's not so easy even for those who try. For more information, there is currently a thread on the LKML disussing this [lkml.org] and how to improve the situation.
In particular, latest kernels claim to be every versions of Windows at the same time, and not Linux! That's not easy to handle for the BIOS writer...
This goes beyond refusing to support (Score:5, Insightful)
This is active sabotage.
They haven't lost a customer, they've gained an enemy. This is an attack. Do not let them get away with it.
The article reposted - minus some code:- (Score:5, Informative)
Here is most of the original article.
The pesky junk filter meant I had to snip some of the code out - sorry.
Posting AC for the usual reason(s).
Foxconn deliberately sabotaging their BIOS to destroy Linux ACPI
Edit: Please tell Foxconn what you think of their behavior:
http://www.foxconnchannel.com/support/online.aspx [foxconnchannel.com]
You need to put in an email, and then it will bring up a form, choose Complain/Suggest.
Edit: Welcome Digg, Reddit, and Slashdot.
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Foxconn_d..._destroy_Linux [digg.com]
http://www.reddit.com/comments/6tcv8...their_bios_to/ [reddit.com]
(Will add Slashdot when I know the final URL)
------------
I disassembled my BIOS to have a look around, and while I won't post the results here,I'll tell you what I did find.
They have several different tables, a group for Windws XP and Vista, a group for 2000, a group for NT, Me, 95, 98, etc. that just errors out, and one for LINUX.
The one for Linux points to a badly written table that does not correspond to the board's ACPI implementation, causing weird kernel errors, strange system freezing, no suspend or hibernate, and other problems, using my modifications below, I've gotten it down to just crashing on the next reboot after having suspended, the horrible thing about disassembling any program is that you have no commenting, so it's hard to tell which does what, but I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a copy of Vista just to get the crashing caused by Foxconn's BIOS to stop, I am not going to be terrorized.
-----
How to fix:
Get Intel's BIOS ACPI source compiler:
sudo apt-get install iasl
Dump your DSDT table:
sudo cat /sys/firmware/acpi/tables/DSDT > dsdt.dat
Disassemble it:
iasl -d dsdt.dat
Open it in Gedit:
gedit dsdt.dsl
Fix Foxconn sabotage:
Find, the section that starts out with
Code:
If (_OSI ("Windows 2000"))
{
Store (0x04, OSVR)
}
Go down til you get to the first
Code:
}
Else
{
Past that you should see Linux alongside Windows NT, which is above another Else that leads to Windows Me.
Should look like:
Code:
If (MCTH (_OS, "Linux"))
{
Store (0x3, OSVR)
}
Change it to:
Code:
If (_OSI ("Linux"))
{
Store (Zero, OSVR)
}
Copy the section, and remove it and the other characters (CAREFULLY PRESERVING SYNTAX!!!!)
Then move the Linux section to right underneath Windows 2006 section.
_Code removed to get past junk filter_
So there you have it!
Whatever happened to... (Score:5, Insightful)
Somewhere along the line, hardware started becoming Windows Only. Modems became Winmodems. Printers became Winprinters. I'm guessing the same thing applies to webcams, and scanners, and other hardware. Now we've got a motherboard with a Windows only BIOS. It sickens me.
This is not an isolated problem... (Score:5, Informative)
See here: http://acpi.sourceforge.net/dsdt/index.php [sourceforge.net]
My wote goes for the guy... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've just opened official ACPI specs and Microsoft's WHQL is NOWHERE EVEN MENTIONED, let alone of being needed and sufficient criteria of ACPI compliance.
IOW, product is ACI compliant when it works in accordance with specs. Once there is violation found, they can no longer claim ACPI compliance.
Been there, done that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Homework (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, except for the part where the motherboard claims to be ACPI compliant when it really isn't. That's sort of false advertising.
Parent
Re:Homework (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Homework (Score:5, Insightful)
If you follow the link in the story, you would see that the poster claims the following:
1) Foxconn advertises its motherboard as ACPI compliant thus potentially misleading people into thinking that linux should be able to handle the board. The company does nothing to counter such possible misunderstandings. One could argue that Foxconn is not obliged to do anything of that sort but for customers it is not as simple as "doing homework" as you suggest. Foxconn doesn't say that things break on linux. They only say "works with windows" and "ACPI compliant". The only way to check is to buy and use (at least until this story).
2) The BIOS actively looks for the OS and passes a modified table to linux. It does not even ask the OS to identify itself and go along with that identification. It rather keeps on having random checks to ensure it is running on windows. I can't think of any good reason why they need to do that unless they want to actively break things for linux.
3) The poster smells something fishy in Foxconn's behavior. Right or wrong, I don't know. But if the poster is right in his suspicion (which s/he must believe), it would be a natural, rational and justified behavior to bitch and moan about it rather than just return the board for a refund. Society owes a lot to such "troublemakers".
Parent
Re:Homework (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Homework (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Homework (Score:5, Interesting)
This is more a case of *Microsoft* not being ACPI compliant.
We really don't know if this applies here. After all, the BIOS is feed wrong information to Linux, on purpose, which is different that what it provides to Win-OSs. For all we know, it may be providing correct capability information to Windows and simply providing bad information to Linux.
Ultimately, one has to wonder about the motives when a market segment is purposely excluded. No company in their right mind wants to exclude a potential sale unless there is money to be made elsewhere from that exclusion. Or perhaps, as you originally stated, they are nowhere near ACPI compliant and realized early on Linux highlights this fact. Even so - why add additional code to further break things if they are already broken without a monetary return elsewhere to justify the extra effort.
Parent
Re:Homework (Score:5, Funny)
Foxconn also accuses him of making "idle treats".
I want an idle treat.
Parent
Re:Homework (Score:5, Interesting)
Is there an industry group that can be contacted in an attempt to force them to remove "ACPI Compliant"? If the original analysis is accurate, clearly they are not ACPI compliant.
Furthermore, since they clearly are breaking ACPI compliance when it detects Linux, and they state ACPI compliance, doesn't this mean they are fraudulently advertising? Seems both the State Attorney General and consumer watchdog groups would like to hear about this.
Parent
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
The trouble here isn't that it doesn't support Linux, it's that the motherboard appears to be actively sabotaging Linux. That's a really weird thing to do and deserves investigation.
Parent
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that Foxconn says its ACPI compliant but its not. It also looks as if they botched Linux by pure purpouse. Why on earth would they have a Linux section in the bios when they dont support it? Something is very smelly here thats for sure. I will keep miles away from Foxconn at my departments no matter if my systems are intended for Windows or Linux.
Parent
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, actually.
File this under having done the world a service by publishing their findings.
Now we know that at least some Foxconn motherboards do not work with Linux, and Foxconn is not interested in doing anything about that. That's useful information.
From other posts, I gather that the motherboard actually has a table specifically targeted at Linux, which supplies broken settings. So it's more than Foxconn simply not supporting Linux; they've actually gone and broken things.
Finally, it seems there is already a workaround available. I guess Linux is willing to support Foxconn, even if Foxconn doesn't want it to. And, really, this is a case of "yay, open source!"
Parent
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Foxconn has no obligation to support
They went out of their way and expended extra effort to prevent Linux from working on their system. This moved beyond "not supporting", to "breaking" hardware that should have functioned without any effort at all on foxconns part, using what was probably considerable effort on their part to detect what kernel was booting, then developing a fake ACPI table to show only when it detected linux.
The interesting part is that a year or so back, there was an article here about how Microsoft floated a letter around manufacturers asking how to make ACPI harder for Linux to implement. Everyone asserted that we were just paranoid and the only reason ACPI was hard for Linux was because "Linux developers suck", but now it seems we know.
Parent
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
They went out of their way and expended extra effort to prevent Linux from working on their system.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
I have my doubts that Foxconn would deliberately sabotage a potential customer set--but I have no doubts whatsoever that they could try to implement Linux support, screw it up, then decide they're not going to finish. After all, their Windows support also sucks.
Parent
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Yay tinfoil hats! (Score:5, Informative)
> So let me get this straight. Some small motherboard manufacturer has flawed ACPI tables and
> refuses to fix them, therefore they MUST out to sabotage Linux?
Nope. Let's get you straightened out.
The BIOS provides two sets of ACPI tables; one good, working and one which isn't even intended to work. It checks what OS string the kernel hands it when it boots. If Windows, it sends the good tables. If Linux, it sends the deliberately faulty ones.
The more you know!
Parent
Re:Yay tinfoil hats! (Score:5, Insightful)
If Windows, it sends the good tables. If Linux, it sends the deliberately faulty ones.
It's still more likely incompetence than conspiracy. Most motherboard manufacturers don't write their own BIOS - they buy a stock one from AMI/Award and make a few changes for their particular board.
What they most likely did was update the DSDT tables handed out to Windows to reflect their hardware, but didn't bother changing the others. So for Linux (and perhaps Win9x) it just has the generic tables that came with the BIOS, which of course don't work for their particular board.
Of course, a BIOS even having per-OS tables is indicative of poor design, since being OS-independent is kinda the whole point of ACPI. That's more of an issue with whoever wrote the BIOS in the first place, though.
While they're probably not out to actively sabotage Linux, it's still poor customer service to refuse to fix it and claim that everything is working fine. Sadly, getting most board manufacturers to fix their broken DSDT tables (and there are a lot out there) is akin to pulling teeth.
Parent
Re:Something I'm missing... (Score:5, Informative)
Because the OS's have bugs in their ACPI implementations. So the BIOS provides a special version of function with a workaround for the bug in case it detects the specific OS version.
Let's note this is valid only for proprietary OS's (aka Windows). For F/OSS kernels, the BIOS writer can simply report a bug on non-ACPI compliance, and it's fixed soon after directly in the kernel.
Parent
Re:off-brand crap: -1, Duh (Score:5, Informative)
Off-brand? They don't sell much under their own branding, but Foxconn [wikipedia.org] is one of the biggest computer components manufacturer in the world. Lots of HP and Dells I've seen have Foxconn boards.
Parent
Re:Immature (Score:5, Insightful)
And how mature and professional is a support drone that says 'don't use linux, use windows vista'??
Parent