OSDev.org

The EFI(Extensible Firmware Interface) specification defines a new model for the interface between operating systems and platform firmware

I like the Idea behind EFI, I think that if this project is successfull, it will change the way Operating Systems work, and open the OS market (and who know one of our OSes may become mainstream).

I done some searching for the EFI specifications and came accros the UEFI website (as I'm reading it, I'm sure it's a PDF of the windows driver model),

I was wondering if EFI is M$ funded project or is the spefication I'm reading not the right specifications and if it is, is EFI just another M$ scam to get us to buy Vista or buy completly new hardware for the doing the same job that our old hardware did quite easily?

The theory is that EFI replaces the BIOS and provides an interface for hardware manufacturers to more easily write drivers that expose h/w functionality to the computer. IIRC this means the EFI compliant devices in your computer have 32bit interfaces. This might be helpful for some devices, and not so for others.

Better yet, find the EFI spec. All I know for certain is that the new Mac boxes are using the EFI firmware.

But now M$ have said that they will not be supporting EFI in Vista. Possibly in the server version.

http://apcmag.com/apc/v3.nsf/0/E666E4A0 ... 2C008166C4

Is there some articles or such about EFI? I'd be interested to see what it provides and what it does not.

I've heard driver stuff would turn a bit simpler by EFI, is this true?

My problem with EFI is i think its part of the bigger plan that also includes stuff like DRM and trusted platform computing.
When you get comments like this from people in the know:

What roles EFI has to play with digital resource management (DRM), trusted platform computing (such as Intel's LaGrande technology) and other security-related ideas have yet to be divulged.

I thing hobby OS will be seen on these PC as virus, melware etc.
Please do not be Turkeys, voting for Xmas.

EFI was meant to replace the BIOS on IA-64 (Itanium). If you buy an itanium pc/server/workstation you'll find find efi installed on it. EFI simplifies boot software by providing some services (eg FAT support etc) lacking in the BIOS.

Dex wrote:My problem with EFI is i think its part of the bigger plan that also includes stuff like DRM and trusted platform computing.

What would keep them from implementing DRM with todays PC BIOS ? In the last years things like SMBIOS or ACPI have been added to the traditional BIOS. There's no reason why it couldn't be extended for rights management.

joke wrote:EFI simplifies boot software by providing some services (eg FAT support etc) lacking in the BIOS.

EFI doesn't just augment the BIOS by a couple of services, it replaces it altogether. The main goals are to provide a modern boot architecture and an interface for runtime services. As drivers get moved to the firmware the operating system no longer has to handle low-level access to the hardware: Like back in the days of DOS devices could once again be accessed using BIOS calls.

regards,
gaf

Hi,

gaf wrote:

Dex wrote:My problem with EFI is i think its part of the bigger plan that also includes stuff like DRM and trusted platform computing.

What would keep them from implementing DRM with todays PC BIOS ? In the last years things like SMBIOS or ACPI have been added to the traditional BIOS. There's no reason why it couldn't be extended for rights management.

I need a good way to ensure my OS hasn't been tampered with since last boot (to prevent people replacing kernel modules with huge security holes) that doesn't involve asking an adminstrator for an "authorisation password" each time the computer is booted.

Eventually, I also want a way to allow users to control access to their files. For example, if I give my accountant a copy of all my financial details, I'd like to be able to prevent the accountant from accessing this information if I change to a different accountant, even when he has several copies of the file on different computers/OSs.

To be honest, I wish they'd hurry up and implement DRM now. Some large media companies might use it to limit access to their content, but I couldn't care less - I don't buy (or pirate) their content anyway so it won't effect me. Other large companies (e.g. Microsoft) might use DRM to screw their users out of more cash, but that's good too - more reasons for people to shift to Linux or some other OS like mine...

gaf wrote:

joke wrote:EFI simplifies boot software by providing some services (eg FAT support etc) lacking in the BIOS.

EFI doesn't just augment the BIOS by a couple of services, it replaces it altogether. The main goals are to provide a modern boot architecture and an interface for runtime services. As drivers get moved to the firmware the operating system no longer has to handle low-level access to the hardware: Like back in the days of DOS devices could once again be accessed using BIOS calls.

That is one of the main benefits of EFI - the OS can have generic device access with no device drivers. Of course this may be "lowest common denominator" device access, but it's a lot better than none.

For FAT, IIRC EFI does include it's own file system, but this is intended to be used to store files needed for the boot environment (possibly on a "hidden" partition). I don't think it's there for the OS to use, and like the rest of EFI it'd be a "lowest common denominator" file system - for example things like journaling, asychronous file I/O, notifications, etc wouldn't be supported.


Cheers,

Brendan

@Brendan, I agree with all you say, if thats how it turned out, i would want it 100%.
I am not bothered about using pirated software ether, but that where we differ.

I see it as a way to stop others software CO get a peace of the pie.
Just look at any software that makes money, the next thing that appans is its included in a certain OS for free, kill the competition, same goes for game consols sell your at below cost. Now from a hobby OS point of view,
1. This mean you will find it hard to get the info you need.
2. If you did get it running, people with get warnings poping up with this is untrusted software, do you want to run it ?.
What do you think most people will do, when even now most people will only test your hobby OS in emulators, yet at the same time they will happly use MSN .

Take USB has a example, seems like agood idea, works OK etc, if you look hard enough theres some info.
But how many hobby OS do you know that have implemented it ?.
You may say that this will help, but i some how do not think so.

So i hope you view of it, is right and we will all be happy using .

Dex wrote: Take USB has a example, seems like agood idea, works OK etc, if you look hard enough theres some info.
But how many hobby OS do you know that have implemented it ?.
You may say that this will help, but i some how do not think so.

So i hope you view of it, is right and we will all be happy using .

USB? it's fairly documented...USB may hard to impliment though...

The OpenBSD group has support for SD/flash and USB storage for example, But It's a "fake" SCSI (sd0) device.

Some new bios's support booting from USB.. I have seen a few SD to IDE/ATA convertors so they may be fairly identical interfaces at a lower level.

Yes Dex4u can do a work around to read/write USB too .
I see the coming sata as a problem too.

Brendan wrote:I need a good way to ensure my OS hasn't been tampered with since last boot that doesn't involve asking an adminstrator for an "authorisation password" each time the computer is booted.

How often has it happend to you that somebody hacked your operating-system while you were out for lunch ?

Trusting in TPCA means putting your power ("authorisation password") in the hands of a group of huge and anonymous companies. How could you trust these companies if they just persue their own goals ? In my opinion stronger security is always a good idea, but it must not happen that I am no longer in charge of what is to run on my computer.

Brendan wrote:If I give my accountant a copy of all my financial details, I'd like to be able to prevent the accountant from accessing this information if I change to a different accountant, even when he has several copies of the file.

I would guess that such cases should already be covered by regular law in most states: The accountant may not reveil confidential information in the first place (NDA) just like your physician may not chat about your health. This system has worked quite until today so that I actually see little reason for change.

Brendan wrote:Some large media companies might use it to limit access to their content, but I couldn't care less - I don't buy (or pirate) their content anyway so it won't effect me.

It's quite naiv to think that you just won't be affected by it, as digital rights management will change the way we all access our media. It's not only a problem for 14 year old kids copying video games: Everybody that listens to music, plays games, watches movies, reads books, manuals or even newspapers will have to deal with rights management.

Actually I'm not agains paid content in general. After all it might actually increase the amount of contents available as it allows companies to sell their services online. This must however not interfere with my rights as a customer: If I bought something I want to own it "physically" (private copy, right to use it as often and wherever I want to, etc). Art just shouldn't be charged by the meter..

Brendan wrote:Other large companies (e.g. Microsoft) might use DRM to screw their users out of more cash, but that's good too - more reasons for people to shift to Linux or some other OS like mine...

And you really think that linux users wouldn't be affected by this ? You'll still have to buy all the "trustworthy" programs to access the taxed content (music, videos, ebooks, websites).

regards,
gaf

gaf wrote:So the problem is not nuclear power but the politicians that used it for the wrong reasons ? You're probably right and yet I wonder if we wouldn't be better off if it had never been invented. In my opinion it's to easy to say that you're just a engineer/scientist that isn't liable for what will be done with his work. The scientists working on the manhattan project are just as responsible for the eradication of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the bomber pilots that dropped the bomb. Technological progress changes our society and I do belief that you always have to consider the outcome of your work.

Now you are providing a quite strong opinion here. The thing is that nuclear power has as many uses for economy as it has uses for war.

But notice, nobody would have used it for war if damn politicians wouldn't been there. It's same now. There's no way to stop it except destroy/disable/annihilate people who are going to use technology so that it reduces total freedom and other people's survival.

Cheery wrote:The thing is that nuclear power has as many uses for economy as it has uses for war. But notice, nobody would have used it for war if damn politicians wouldn't been there.

The Manhattan project took place during the Second World War and the scientists participating in it knew exactly that the government wouldn't invest billions in developing a weapon that was never meant to be used. The question is whether you can insist on being merely a scientist that just does his work, or if you do have some higher moral resposibilities as a human. It's also about technologies that have so many risks that they probably shouldn't have been invented in the first place, even if they could also have their merits.

This thread has already shifted from EDI to DRM and TCPA. My intention was not to start yet another off-topic discussion about nucleur-power or the Manhattan project. It was just an example and I could aswell have picked any other technology that might lead to terrible results although the intentions weren't all bad (artificial fertilizers, genetic engineering, electronic surveillance, etc).

What I wanted to show is that you can't seperate between the technology of DRM and its potentially harmful use in a capitalistic economy. If you support the introduction if TCPA chips in every computer, you also implicitly agree with the goals of companies that want to misuse digital rights management.

There's no way to stop it except destroy/disable/annihilate people who are going to use technology so that it reduces total freedom and other people's survival.

Just a couple of more crusades against the axis of evil and we're save again ? The knowledge of how to build nuclear weapons is freely available and every medium sized roque state could build its own today. After the collaps of the soviet union hundreds of warheads were spread accross the whole world and are now available for all kinds of terrorist groups and dictatorships. Nuclear weapons have been invented and we will never again get rid of the threat..

regards,
gaf

gaf wrote:

There's no way to stop it except destroy/disable/annihilate people who are going to use technology so that it reduces total freedom and other people's survival.

Just a couple of more crusades against the axis of evil and we're save again ? The knowledge of how to build nuclear weapons is freely available and every medium sized roque state could build its own today. After the collaps of the soviet union hundreds of warheads were spread accross the whole world and are now available for all kinds of terrorist groups and dictatorships. Nuclear weapons have been invented and we will never again get rid of the threat..

I should have added "/make understand/teach/help" after annihilate. I've been too tight today, from some reason. I don't have much to say now. DRM, like nuclear power would be very useful in hands which knows how to use it properly. To make it so, one could alter the people deciding about applications for DRM. I think they know what kind of mistake they are doing, so there is not much to explain. Just to make sure they won't get things done what they are planning to.

It is exactly same thing with nuclear weapons. Everybody knows that it harms others to launch a nuclear missile. Only chance what you can do for preventing is to make sure the launch will never happen, or that at least it blows over the launcher's head. But what if it'll be launched to prevent asteroid impact?

There are just too many variables in this thing, I push my hands out of this!