Re: Re: Re: [Reproducible-builds] Raspi 3 suitable for arm64
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 06:17:43PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>> UEFI is explicitly specified to give standard interfaces with
>> reliable, known behaviour across different implementations. It's often
>> *not* easily user-replaceable (just like on x86 servers) and we should
>> not be buggering with it once it works.
>
>We'll agree to disagree then. I think keeping vendor supplied stuff of
>any kind is suboptimal at best. I want coreboot/grub/u-boot/Linux/etc
>not Phoenix BIOS/proprietary versions of TianoCore/etc.
That's fine, of course! It's not like I'm advocating *against* Free
Software here. But AFAICS the main reason why people have suggested
the "replace the godawful forked vendor-provided U-Boot" process in
the past is pragmatism in terms of getting systems that will work at
all sensibly for users. With much better firmware available on better
systems, there isn't the same drive: in fact pushing to replace it
will make things harder for our users.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky,
Tongue-tied & twisted, Just an earth-bound misfit, I...
Reply to: