Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:55:16 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Feenberg <feenberg@nber.org> To: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010?? Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1211190745270.21594@nber6> In-Reply-To: <20121119121832.de248106.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <20121118085838.GA7267@ethic.thought.org> <50AA00BA.1040007@bnrlabs.com> <20121119114306.ff21baa9.freebsd@edvax.de> <20121119060029.76b85120@scorpio> <20121119121832.de248106.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012, Polytropon wrote: > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:00:29 -0500, Jerry wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:43:06 +0100 >> Polytropon articulated: >> >>> Allow me to provide just one example: >>> >>> More in the series of bizarre UEFI bugs >>> http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20187.html >> >> That doesn't appear to be a bug. It appears that the code is doing >> exactly what the designer wanted it to do. At best this was an >> oversight by the designer; at worse just plain incompetence. > > That's quite possible. We've seen poorly implemented ACPI > behaviour in "modern" BIOS as well, or manufacturers > intendedly going "their way" to limit hardware in what > it can do or what it will support. > > It's just my fear that UEFI won't do better per se, and > that lazy or incompetent people will screw it up, and > make it worse. > > The article mentions "legacy boot" to restore a somewhat > "normal" behaviour... > The only way for FreeBSD (or Linux, for that matter) to survive in a world where hardware vendors care only about Windows, is to make sure that FreeBSD only depends upon features that Windows uses. If a hardware or firmware specification requires feature X, but Windows doesn't use feature X, then vendors won't test feature X, and FreeBSD can't depend on it being functional. So it shouldn't be required by FreeBSD. It can be used, provided it isn't required. In this case it may mean that FreeBSD must identify itself as Windows, just as all browsers identify themselves as IE. You might say this was "enabling" vendors to provide buggy systems, but as long as FreeBSD is small it does not have the power to affect vendors. Insisting on correctness from vendors has no effect when it is FreeBSD doing the insisting. It is only when FreeBSD is more widely used that it can adopt the role of enforcing standards on vendors, and it can not become widely used if it starts insisting on standards prematurely. daniel feenberg > > > -- > Polytropon > Magdeburg, Germany > Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 > Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.1211190745270.21594>