On 14.02.19 09:28, Patrick Rudolph wrote: > On Wed, 2019-02-13 at 10:15 +0100, Nico Huber wrote: >> On 13.02.19 09:45, Patrick Rudolph wrote: >>> With UEFI the defactor standard it seems reasonable to improve the >>> tianocore payload integration. >> >> I agree that UEFI may seem ubiquitous (we've slept too long, never pro- >> vided an alternative), but why should we focus on tianocore? >> >> Tianocore isn't the only UEFI implementation. There is Yabits and, IIRC, >> somebody was working on a Boot-Services implementation for Linux (don't >> know the state of it, though). So why not put the effort into something >> that benefits our infrastructure more? Yabits uses libpayload, afaik. >> Would be nice to have more payloads upstream that use it. And if core- >> boot developers would put as much effort into Yabits as they put into >> merely getting tiano to compile, it would likely flourish much >> better. >> > There's yabits as payload integration in coreboot already. > > Yabits didn't receive updates in the last few month. Looking at the > code base it's more a Proof-of-Concept.
I fear it'll stay this way if everybody interested in UEFI runs after Tianocore. Open-source development isn't about waiting for somebody else to do the job. At least, it wasn't always. Nico _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
