Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LinuxBoot: Linux as Firmware

linuxboot.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 187 posts

Re: LinuxBoot: Linux as Firmware

#151

Post by O_H_E »

steeve wrote: post #111
ComputerGuru wrote: post #94

There is virtually no information on that page. I don't understand why this is getting voted so highly. I'm interested (this falls right in my area of expertise, see my other comments on this page) and I've heard about this proposal before, but the landing page this story links to is just a placeholder with no useful (technical or marketing) information.

This is probably because people saw the LinuxCon video and are excited that it's out. At least that's my case :)

Now I got something that I need to checkout to understand :)

Thanks for that "seemingly useless" comment

Re: LinuxBoot: Linux as Firmware

#152

Post by chriswarbo »

johncolanduoni wrote: post #101
chriswarbo wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What control did you have with an old PC BIOS that you now are missing with UEFI? I had a PC with a BIOS once. It didn't seem as slick as the Kickstart I'd used for the previous decase on my Amigas. It was also much less configurable/programmable than the OpenFirmware that came on my subsequent PC. My current machine uses libreboot, which is fine but I much prefer OpenFirmware. tl;dr "BIOS vs EFI" is a false dichot…

The person I was responding to was claiming UEFI was restricting their choices and had "introduced" problems. I don't really see what OpenFirmware, libreboot, etc. has to do with this. I didn't say UEFI was the best boot system ever envisioned (I definitely think they could have done better) but claiming it's some anti-consumer conspiracy in a way PC BIOS wasn't makes no sense.

For what it's worth, I agree with the parent. IMO Microsoft's strong-arming around "SecureBoot" is enough to distrust everything to do with EFI.

Re: LinuxBoot: Linux as Firmware

#153

Post by pjmlp »

vanderZwan wrote: post #149
pjmlp wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So much for Go not being a systems programming language. There are other examples already. Fuchsia TCP/IP stack and file system driver management utilities are implemented in Go. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/golang-dev/2xuYHcP0Fdc/tKb1P... Android's new GPU debugger is written in Go. https://github.com/google/gapid An then there are some bare-metal experiments like G.E.R.T. https://github.com/ycoroneos/G.E.R.T

I knew about G.E.R.T. but the other two are new to me, very nice! (I was going for a tongue-in-cheek ribbing of the Go-haters - in retrospect my wording sounds a bit passive-aggressive, probably should have ended with an exclamation mark and a smily or something)

I do share a love-hate relation to Go.

I love it is based on a mix of Oberon and Limbo, compiled to native code and an improvement for what a safe C like language should probably look like, and who knows maybe someone decides a day to do a "Goberon" OS for they OS PhD research.

Basically what Java and C# 1.0 should have been all along, about 20 years ago.

However I also dislike some of the design decisions regarding features that will never come to Go, regardless of how much we get to discuss them, even with the mirage of Go 2.0.

Re: LinuxBoot: Linux as Firmware

#154

Post by snvzz »

zokula wrote: post #126
snvzz wrote: post #118

I do like the coreboot + lightweight payload (such as u-boot or grub) approach, and simply can't see any benefit of jamming a Linux kernel in; Simplicity is itself value. Even if I were to find their approach appealing (I don't), Linux's monolithic design with no driver APIs doesn't even seem like a good fit for this; NetBSD's kernel size (and its cleaner design, and the RUMP kernels feature), Minix3 (high assurance,…

> NetBSD's kernel size (and its cleaner design, Don't make me laugh.

You've obviously never read any netbsd code. Fortunately, I have, and I can tell you: Cleaner design.

Re: LinuxBoot: Linux as Firmware

#155

Post by nickik »

Annatar wrote: post #145
pferde wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're probably getting downvoted because you did not follow up with "...because $reasons", so your post comes off as petty Linux hate (is there such word as "anti-fanboyism"?).

Thanks for the clarification. In the context, most other posts here contain no technical detail whatsoever either and are nothing more than unsubstantiated opinions (same as mine); they just really dislike that there is someone out there who doesn’t think that Linux is phenomenal. In the days of Microsoft dominance, we called that monoculture. Volumes have been written and videos filmed on all the inadequacies of the…

Can you actually link to these resources?

Because people have been doing it since the 90s. Google use this on their Chromebook. Some of the people working on Coreboot, Heads, NERF have been doing it for a long time and they all seem to agree with each other.

Also, please tell me why the Linux kernel is so bad, but the BSDs are not? They are not that different and its hard to argue that they are much saver in terms of bugs (just look at the BSD talk at 34C3).

You actually clarified nothing in your post.

Re: LinuxBoot: Linux as Firmware

#156

Post by nickik »

steeve wrote: post #111
ComputerGuru wrote: post #94

There is virtually no information on that page. I don't understand why this is getting voted so highly. I'm interested (this falls right in my area of expertise, see my other comments on this page) and I've heard about this proposal before, but the landing page this story links to is just a placeholder with no useful (technical or marketing) information.

This is probably because people saw the LinuxCon video and are excited that it's out. At least that's my case :)

Do you have a link to the talk?

Re: LinuxBoot: Linux as Firmware

#157

Post by nickik »

snvzz wrote: post #118

I do like the coreboot + lightweight payload (such as u-boot or grub) approach, and simply can't see any benefit of jamming a Linux kernel in; Simplicity is itself value. Even if I were to find their approach appealing (I don't), Linux's monolithic design with no driver APIs doesn't even seem like a good fit for this; NetBSD's kernel size (and its cleaner design, and the RUMP kernels feature), Minix3 (high assurance,…

Using Linux is simpler. Grub needs to replicated a ton of stuff that already is in Linux and it has worse more insecure and slower implementation.

Once you have a real Linux you can use all the battle tested code. You can easily and in good environment implement all the features you want in terms of boot verification, boot security, authentication, attestation and so on.

Using Grub and pushing ever more features into it is not simpler, and its not more secure.

Using a well tested Linux software that has long supported these features with a set of standard open source implementation for all the features you need.

Re: LinuxBoot: Linux as Firmware

#158

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

endymi0n wrote: post #139
madez wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why it is important to not buy random shiny devices. Open source hardware like for example the Teres-1 [0] are what allows us to stay in control. I can't wait for even more open successors based on RISC-V processors. [0] https://www.olimex.com/Products/DIY-Laptop/

I‘m sorry, but 99% of the population will prefer a random shiny device that plays their cat video to one that lets them be „in control“ but have them recompile their kernel with the correct wifi driver before it works for them. With the current ecosystem, it‘s just much cheaper to mix and match commercial off the shelf solutions that are way too powerful for the job than custom building an optimized solution, because…

> Heck, I‘ll take a Raspberry Pi over an Arduino any day to automate a simple relay, just because with real Go and Linux I can use the same tooling I‘m using every day at work.

I don't think this is a good example as for many people there are far more good reasons to pick up Arduino over RPi in this scenario. With LinuxBoot the question is far more complicated. If there is a vendor using it, and if it's done properly, you won't even notice a difference.

Re: LinuxBoot: Linux as Firmware

#159

Post by gkya »

Annatar wrote: post #145
pferde wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're probably getting downvoted because you did not follow up with "...because $reasons", so your post comes off as petty Linux hate (is there such word as "anti-fanboyism"?).

Thanks for the clarification. In the context, most other posts here contain no technical detail whatsoever either and are nothing more than unsubstantiated opinions (same as mine); they just really dislike that there is someone out there who doesn’t think that Linux is phenomenal. In the days of Microsoft dominance, we called that monoculture. Volumes have been written and videos filmed on all the inadequacies of the…

So Linux (there is no GNU/Linux kernel, but a GNU/Linux OS) is more popular than how much you'd like it to be, and is that the problem? I for one am glad GPL-licenced free software is running on as much platforms as possible. In those cases Linux is basically a library they pick for their work. You can well say the same thing for glibc, gcc, apache, nginx etc. But in the end-user space nobody is forcing you to use Linux, and that's what monoculture is, not the choices regarding firmware with which the end user is not meant to ever interact.

Re: LinuxBoot: Linux as Firmware

#160

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #17
mevile wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firmware with a built in web server is pretty spooky. Why do they have that?

To administer a fleet of computers remotely. HTTP is a widely-implemented and tested protocol that fits the problem domain well.

As opposed to something like SNMP that was designed for remote management.
Post reply on HN