From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751111AbWGYGAS (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jul 2006 02:00:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751352AbWGYGAR (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jul 2006 02:00:17 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:23450 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751111AbWGYGAP (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jul 2006 02:00:15 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:00:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Andrew Morton cc: Edgar Hucek , ebiederm@xmission.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Add efi e820 memory mapping on x86 [try #1] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <44A04F5F.8030405@ed-soft.at> <44A0CCEA.7030309@ed-soft.at> <44A304C1.2050304@zytor.com> <44A8058D.3030905@zytor.com> <44AB8878.7010203@ed-soft.at> <44B6BF2F.6030401@ed-soft.at> <44B73791.9080601@ed-soft.at> <44B9FF02.3020600@ed-soft.at> <20060724212911.32dd3bc0.akpm@osdl.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Sadly, Apple bought into the whole "BIOS bad, EFI good" hype, so we now > have x86 machines with EFI as the native boot protocol. Btw, that's not totally new. I think some people played around with EFI on x86 even before Apple came around. And don't get me wrong - the problem with EFI is that it actually superficially looks much better than the BIOS, but in practice it ends up being one of those things where it has few real advantages, and often just a lot of extra complexity because of the "new and improved" interfaces that were largely defined by a committee. I think a lot of the "new standards" tend to be that way. Trying to solve a lot of problems and allow everybody to add their own features, instead of just saying that it's better to just standardize the hardware. For example, instead of ACPI, we could just have had standardized hardware (and a few tables to define things like numbers of CPU's etc). It would have been simpler for everybody. But no, people seem to think that it's somehow "better" to have wild and crazy hardware, and then have a really complicated way of describing it - and driving it - dynamically. So EFI has this cool shell, a loadable driver framework, and other nice features. Where "nice" obviously means "much more complex than the simple things they designed in the late seventies back when people were stupid and just wanted things to work". Of course, it's somewhat questionable whether people have actually gotten smarter or stupider in the last 30 years. It's not enough time for evolution to have increased our brain capacity, but it certainly _is_ enough time for most people to no longer understand how hardware works any more. Not a good combination, in other words. Not that I'd ever claim that the BIOS is wonderful either, but at least everybody knows that the BIOS is just a bootloader, and doesn't try to make it anything else. The absolutely biggest advantage of a BIOS is that it's _so_ inconvenient and obviously oldfashioned, that you have to be crazy to want to do anything serious in it. Real mode, 16-bit code is actually an _advantage_ in that sense. People know how to treat it, and don't get any ideas about it being some grandiose framework for anything else than "just load the OS and get the hell out of there". Linus