More on Foxconn and Linux - Linux

This is a discussion on More on Foxconn and Linux - Linux ; Someone here recently wondered why Foxconn would have a broken Linux section in the BIOS. Turns out there is a good reason. All modern BIOSes have a section for handling Linux--but Linux tells the BIOS that it is Windows NT, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: More on Foxconn and Linux

  1. More on Foxconn and Linux


    Someone here recently wondered why Foxconn would have a broken Linux
    section in the BIOS. Turns out there is a good reason. All modern
    BIOSes have a section for handling Linux--but Linux tells the BIOS that
    it is Windows NT, not Linux. So, the Linux section is not actually used
    on any BIOS. Hence, the broken Foxconn code is actually irrelevant.
    Linux doesn't work on that motherboard because Foxconn has done
    something in the NT code (probably to work around a Windows bug) that
    happens to be incompatible with Linux.

    There was an interesting discussion about this kind of thing, in regards
    to an incompatibility between Linux and HP BIOSes, on the Linux kernel
    list very recently:



    --
    --Tim Smith

  2. Re: More on Foxconn and Linux

    On Jul 28, 3:48*am, Tim Smith wrote:
    > Someone here recently wondered why Foxconn would have a broken Linux
    > section in the BIOS. *Turns out there is a good reason. *All modern
    > BIOSes have a section for handling Linux--but Linux tells the BIOS that
    > it is Windows NT, not Linux. *So, the Linux section is not actually used
    > on any BIOS. *Hence, the broken Foxconn code is actually irrelevant. *
    > Linux doesn't work on that motherboard because Foxconn has done
    > something in the NT code (probably to work around a Windows bug) that
    > happens to be incompatible with Linux.
    >
    > There was an interesting discussion about this kind of thing, in regards
    > to an incompatibility between Linux and HP BIOSes, on the Linux kernel
    > list very recently:
    >
    > * *
    >
    > --
    > --Tim Smith


    I get a bios error, on boot, with my HP Laptop
    using Ubuntu 8. It seems to boot fine afterward.






  3. Re: More on Foxconn and Linux

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Someone here recently wondered why Foxconn would have a broken Linux
    > section in the BIOS. Turns out there is a good reason. All modern
    > BIOSes have a section for handling Linux--but Linux tells the BIOS that
    > it is Windows NT, not Linux. So, the Linux section is not actually used
    > on any BIOS. Hence, the broken Foxconn code is actually irrelevant.
    > Linux doesn't work on that motherboard because Foxconn has done
    > something in the NT code (probably to work around a Windows bug) that
    > happens to be incompatible with Linux.
    >
    > There was an interesting discussion about this kind of thing, in regards
    > to an incompatibility between Linux and HP BIOSes, on the Linux kernel
    > list very recently:
    >
    >


    That's a nice find. Makes me wonder, though, why BIOS makers bother
    with a "Linux" check.

    It's also telling the little handsprings they have to undergo for
    various versions of Windows. The author asks:

    What are the consequences of:
    1) The fact that BIOS vendors have to fix Windows bugs/erratas
    through ACPI _OSI hooks (this is nearly the only way BIOS
    vendors do use the _OSI interface)
    2) The current Linux _OSI implementation being transparent to Windows
    3) The invalid critical temperature is simply ignored and the
    trip point not shown to userspace

    His answer is that the Vista/SP1 bug workaround has to eventually go
    into all HP BIOSes, killing all ACPI-aware Linux kernels, forcing
    dual-OS vendors to provide a separate BIOS or patch for Linux, or having
    Linux implement all workarounds for Windows bugs.

    As to my wondering above about the Linux check:

    Document Linux _OSI behavior. No ACPI BIOS developer is aware that
    Linux violates the Spec. All latest ACPI BIOSes do check for "Linux"
    as running OS, but Linux does not return true for the call.
    I have started to document current _OSI behavior on Linux. I then
    realized it might be a good idea to extend it a bit and talk about
    general ACPI BIOS problems on Linux.

    Maybe the kernel guys are afraid of what the BIOS will do when the Linux
    check succeeds .

    --
    The honeymoon is over when he phones to say he'll be late for supper and
    she's already left a note that it's in the refrigerator.
    -- Bill Lawrence

  4. Re: More on Foxconn and Linux

    Linonut writes:

    > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> Someone here recently wondered why Foxconn would have a broken Linux
    >> section in the BIOS. Turns out there is a good reason. All modern
    >> BIOSes have a section for handling Linux--but Linux tells the BIOS that
    >> it is Windows NT, not Linux. So, the Linux section is not actually used
    >> on any BIOS. Hence, the broken Foxconn code is actually irrelevant.
    >> Linux doesn't work on that motherboard because Foxconn has done
    >> something in the NT code (probably to work around a Windows bug) that
    >> happens to be incompatible with Linux.
    >>
    >> There was an interesting discussion about this kind of thing, in regards
    >> to an incompatibility between Linux and HP BIOSes, on the Linux kernel
    >> list very recently:
    >>
    >>

    >
    > That's a nice find. Makes me wonder, though, why BIOS makers bother
    > with a "Linux" check.


    You can not guess?
    >
    > Maybe the kernel guys are afraid of what the BIOS will do when the Linux
    > check succeeds .


    Maybe they need to get their ACPI and related working properly.

    --
    "Well we know Quack is an inveterate liar & troll with no credibility, so
    you cannot take *anything* he says as being true."
    -- William Poaster showing his love for Hadron despite claiming never to read his posts in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  5. Re: More on Foxconn and Linux

    On 2008-07-28, Hadron wrote:
    > Linonut writes:
    >
    >> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>> Someone here recently wondered why Foxconn would have a broken Linux
    >>> section in the BIOS. Turns out there is a good reason. All modern
    >>> BIOSes have a section for handling Linux--but Linux tells the BIOS that
    >>> it is Windows NT, not Linux. So, the Linux section is not actually used
    >>> on any BIOS. Hence, the broken Foxconn code is actually irrelevant.
    >>> Linux doesn't work on that motherboard because Foxconn has done
    >>> something in the NT code (probably to work around a Windows bug) that
    >>> happens to be incompatible with Linux.
    >>>
    >>> There was an interesting discussion about this kind of thing, in regards
    >>> to an incompatibility between Linux and HP BIOSes, on the Linux kernel
    >>> list very recently:
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> That's a nice find. Makes me wonder, though, why BIOS makers bother
    >> with a "Linux" check.

    >
    > You can not guess?
    >>
    >> Maybe the kernel guys are afraid of what the BIOS will do when the Linux
    >> check succeeds .

    >
    > Maybe they need to get their ACPI and related working properly.


    Give them a stationary target and they will hit it.

    This is far preferable to Microsoft presenting a moving target and
    being unwilling to play nice because it knows it's the monopoly
    player in the market.

    If it's a genuine standard, then the BIOS makers should be able to
    buy a document from ISO and work based off of that. THAT is what
    standards are for.

    This is also why Microsoft can't be trusted with any "standard" of
    it's own creation.

    --
    Sure, I could use iTunes even under Linux. However, I have |||
    better things to do with my time than deal with how iTunes doesn't / | \
    want to play nicely with everyone else's data (namely mine). I'd
    rather create a DVD using those Linux apps we're told don't exist.

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  6. Re: More on Foxconn and Linux

    JEDIDIAH writes:

    > On 2008-07-28, Hadron wrote:
    >> Linonut writes:
    >>
    >>> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>
    >>>> Someone here recently wondered why Foxconn would have a broken Linux
    >>>> section in the BIOS. Turns out there is a good reason. All modern
    >>>> BIOSes have a section for handling Linux--but Linux tells the BIOS that
    >>>> it is Windows NT, not Linux. So, the Linux section is not actually used
    >>>> on any BIOS. Hence, the broken Foxconn code is actually irrelevant.
    >>>> Linux doesn't work on that motherboard because Foxconn has done
    >>>> something in the NT code (probably to work around a Windows bug) that
    >>>> happens to be incompatible with Linux.
    >>>>
    >>>> There was an interesting discussion about this kind of thing, in regards
    >>>> to an incompatibility between Linux and HP BIOSes, on the Linux kernel
    >>>> list very recently:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> That's a nice find. Makes me wonder, though, why BIOS makers bother
    >>> with a "Linux" check.

    >>
    >> You can not guess?
    >>>
    >>> Maybe the kernel guys are afraid of what the BIOS will do when the Linux
    >>> check succeeds .

    >>
    >> Maybe they need to get their ACPI and related working properly.

    >
    > Give them a stationary target and they will hit it.


    Huh? I thought "Open" meant everything was done yesterday?

    >
    > This is far preferable to Microsoft presenting a moving target and
    > being unwilling to play nice because it knows it's the monopoly
    > player in the market.


    You've lost me.

    >
    > If it's a genuine standard, then the BIOS makers should be able to
    > buy a document from ISO and work based off of that. THAT is what
    > standards are for.
    >
    > This is also why Microsoft can't be trusted with any "standard" of
    > it's own creation.


    You seem to be off on a tangent again.

    --
    "The fact that they have been selling alpha HW which cant even make a
    phone call? That sounds like successful to me if the aim was to get some
    suckers to pay for its later development to a point where it might be
    useable." -- Hadron in alt.os.windows-xp, comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.advocacy

  7. Re: More on Foxconn and Linux

    On 2008-07-28, Hadron wrote:
    > JEDIDIAH writes:
    >
    >> On 2008-07-28, Hadron wrote:
    >>> Linonut writes:
    >>>
    >>>> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Someone here recently wondered why Foxconn would have a broken Linux
    >>>>> section in the BIOS. Turns out there is a good reason. All modern
    >>>>> BIOSes have a section for handling Linux--but Linux tells the BIOS that
    >>>>> it is Windows NT, not Linux. So, the Linux section is not actually used
    >>>>> on any BIOS. Hence, the broken Foxconn code is actually irrelevant.
    >>>>> Linux doesn't work on that motherboard because Foxconn has done
    >>>>> something in the NT code (probably to work around a Windows bug) that
    >>>>> happens to be incompatible with Linux.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> There was an interesting discussion about this kind of thing, in regards
    >>>>> to an incompatibility between Linux and HP BIOSes, on the Linux kernel
    >>>>> list very recently:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> That's a nice find. Makes me wonder, though, why BIOS makers bother
    >>>> with a "Linux" check.
    >>>
    >>> You can not guess?
    >>>>
    >>>> Maybe the kernel guys are afraid of what the BIOS will do when the Linux
    >>>> check succeeds .
    >>>
    >>> Maybe they need to get their ACPI and related working properly.

    >>
    >> Give them a stationary target and they will hit it.

    >
    > Huh? I thought "Open" meant everything was done yesterday?
    >
    >>
    >> This is far preferable to Microsoft presenting a moving target and
    >> being unwilling to play nice because it knows it's the monopoly
    >> player in the market.

    >
    > You've lost me.


    ....obviously.

    You never actually read any of the materials related to this situation.

    >
    >>
    >> If it's a genuine standard, then the BIOS makers should be able to
    >> buy a document from ISO and work based off of that. THAT is what
    >> standards are for.
    >>
    >> This is also why Microsoft can't be trusted with any "standard" of
    >> it's own creation.

    >
    > You seem to be off on a tangent again.
    >


    No, you're Lemming blinders are just interfering with your vision.

    --
    Sure, I could use iTunes even under Linux. However, I have |||
    better things to do with my time than deal with how iTunes doesn't / | \
    want to play nicely with everyone else's data (namely mine). I'd
    rather create a DVD using those Linux apps we're told don't exist.

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  8. Re: More on Foxconn and Linux

    On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:48:42 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > Someone here recently wondered why Foxconn would have a broken Linux
    > section in the BIOS. Turns out there is a good reason. All modern
    > BIOSes have a section for handling Linux--but Linux tells the BIOS that
    > it is Windows NT, not Linux. So, the Linux section is not actually used
    > on any BIOS. Hence, the broken Foxconn code is actually irrelevant.
    > Linux doesn't work on that motherboard because Foxconn has done
    > something in the NT code (probably to work around a Windows bug) that
    > happens to be incompatible with Linux.
    >
    > There was an interesting discussion about this kind of thing, in regards
    > to an incompatibility between Linux and HP BIOSes, on the Linux kernel
    > list very recently:
    >
    >


    Fo years I have been informed by the Linux loons that Linux doesn't use the
    BIOS?

    Now suddenly Linux DOES use the BIOS?

    ???????
    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  9. Re: More on Foxconn and Linux

    The racist, liar and software thief Gary Stewart (flatfish) nymshifted:

    > On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:48:42 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> Someone here recently wondered why Foxconn would have a broken Linux
    >> section in the BIOS. Turns out there is a good reason. All modern
    >> BIOSes have a section for handling Linux--but Linux tells the BIOS that
    >> it is Windows NT, not Linux. So, the Linux section is not actually used
    >> on any BIOS. Hence, the broken Foxconn code is actually irrelevant.
    >> Linux doesn't work on that motherboard because Foxconn has done
    >> something in the NT code (probably to work around a Windows bug) that
    >> happens to be incompatible with Linux.
    >>
    >> There was an interesting discussion about this kind of thing, in regards
    >> to an incompatibility between Linux and HP BIOSes, on the Linux kernel
    >> list very recently:
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Fo years I have been informed by the Linux loons that Linux doesn't use
    > the BIOS?
    >
    > Now suddenly Linux DOES use the BIOS?
    >
    > ???????


    Please explain the boot process in hardware alone, flatfish Gary Stewart.
    Without the BIOS or equivalent
    --
    Windows: Because everyone needs a good laugh!


+ Reply to Thread