bzt, WinNT interface is well documented, it's how different vendors provide drivers for their peripherals. they write drivers, using that interface. this is kernel exported functions, driver models, development kits etc. all is documented, samples are given. with the rather free license. A so called Native API, that one residing in ntdll.dll on the user mode side is intentionally not documented, but not for reasons you would think - it's because, it's an internal API, that way it's easier to change it and not break millions of third party programs. using it won't let you any advantage over WinAPI - a well documented interface for third party programs.
this is not how apple is doing with their ARM macs at all. apple, if really won't let run anything (not just by not providing the specification to their SoC, but locking the fw from loading any loader, other than their) is just purely p*ssy. I don't know if it's "anticompetitive" or not, but it makes them look like 4ssholes. however, it's not a big deal, since apple is not the only one who makes ARM chips. the whole buzz about it is because well, as always, - there is a lot of people that fell to worshipping the bitten apple. even if they are peeing them on the face.
about unifying ARM platform, it's all gonna be fine. ARM is getting ACPI/UEFI, so this is a temporary problem if at all. as for now, you either pick well documented SoCs, and 1) use the half assed device tree for device discovery (root enumeration) or write ACPI tables for the SoCs vendor. *trollface then your OS is ok, because everything is familiar. USB is USB, PCIe is PCIe etc. PCs also have peripherals, enthusiast developers have no way to get to them due to the lack of any documentation. they are even called the same on both platforms! read GPU, VPU, display controllers, wifi/blutooth.
or ... program the one and only RPi. writing the code, that no other ARM machine could take advantage of. but hey, if you notice only RPi, you deserve what you get.
bzt wrote:
Is this any different to Intel based UEFI machines with forced Secure Boot?
don't you see the difference? between "need to be signed for running" and "impossible due to the lock by fw"? come on.