Foxconn owns up to dodgy BIOS crippling Linux
Summary: The other day I blogged about how the Foxconn G33M-S motherboard didn't play nicely with Linux because it broke ACPI support. Well, as it turns out the problem isn't a Foxconn one but it's down to American Megatrends (AMI) having shipped a defective BIOS. Also, as it turns out, other boards are also affected.
[UPDATE: The debug version on an updated BIOS is now available from Foxconn. Details here.]
The other day I blogged about how the Foxconn G33M-S motherboard didn't play nicely with Linux because it broke ACPI support. Well, as it turns out the problem isn't a Foxconn one but it's down to American Megatrends (AMI) having shipped a defective BIOS. Also, as it turns out, other boards are also affected.
Here's the current state of play:
- The issue has been reported to Ubuntu.
- The buggy BIOS also allegedly affects the following motherboards: - MSI P965 Platinum - Asus P5K-E - Asus P5E WS - Asus P5E WS PRO
- Foxconn say that an update will be released for the motherboard in the next few days.
- No ETA for a fix from other vendors.
- Nothing here points to any kind of conspiracy theory to lock Linux out of the game. The issue seems to be a bug, and this was made much worse than it needed to thanks to a poor tech support representative working for Foxconn. If tech support had logged the fault rather than argue that the board was Vista only, none of this would have been a problem as it would have been just another bug.
Thanks to Ryan for keeping me updated.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
About the treatment from Foxconn
They've told me they reprimanded the employee responsible for those "Buy Vista" answers.
Have they? I really wouldn't have even asked them to, their response to Linux inquiries now has been to ask the customer how they can help, instead of insulting them, so this satisfies me.
Within the next week or so, this BIOS fix will get pumped out, much to Steve Ballmer's dismay ;) and we can all go back to doing what we do, being computer enthusiats without paying the kings ransom and giving up freedom to Microsoft.
I still strongly believe Microsoft had a hand in this, but to what level is hard to say, had they bought off AMI it would be as unoffical and off the record as possible, they don't want the pesky DOJ tracing this to them, even though several million motherboards not capable of running Linux would delight them.
The gloves are off now though, and it'll be harder for Foxconn to get by with the negligence excuse again. (and they make most motherboards for PC and Mac, so this is not a victory in vein.)
Well, at the very least, MS LIKES these kinds of problems, though, it
Thanks for the clarification
This would never have happened with Windows, though. It's distressing that manufacturers let products slip through to market with such obvious, glaring defects in them.
Doesn't anybody believe in testing, anymore?
Sure it works.......
Seriously though, Windows covers up most bad BIOS behavior, for disreputable companies that want to make a quick buck, the Vista seal is all they're wanting, screw you, you just BOUGHT the product, not like they need happy customers. ;)
Ditto
Regarding testing, it's possible that they tested the first
boards that made it past production, but didn't continue to
test for Linux, and a bad batch got thru. The important thing
is that there was an outcry and that Foxconn is dealing with
the problem. Credit to Adrian and others for getting
Foxconn's attention.
So it becomes their tech support's fault?
Pass the buck
When you're caught with a mistake, blame it on somebody else.
And the conspiracy finger still applies. I still smell a rat here.
they choose not to support the product for linux
Wrong!
The truth is ACPI is broken under windows. Linux works just fine with the published ACPI spec.
ACPI was co-authored by Microsoft ....
So? They are the sole authors of OOXML...
Works fine with office.
He's referring...
Not that it's relevant here.
And Linux's ACPI is written by Intel.
What is your point?
One person??? Try learning how Linux is developed first!
For a complete list of [i]everyone[/i] who has worked on Linux ACPI, I suggest you consult the mailing list archives:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&r=1&w=2
http://www.lesswatts.org/projects/acpi/mailing-lists.php
And as for "a staff of people from Microsoft implimenting(sic) ACPI" for Windows, how do [u]you[/u] know how many people Microsoft has assigned to this task? Has Microsoft told you? Granted, it's [b]probably[/b] more than one, but that's still no more than a guess.
So we have ACPI, co-written by Microsoft and Intel, and with Intel driving Linux's ACPI support.
Don't be obtuse!
Arrogant bluster, masking poor reading comprehension!
Correct up to here, but then falls down [b]miserably[/b] when you carry on to say:
[i]" and gave one person from Intel as proof."[/i]
My [i]actual[/i] statement was:
[i]"[T]he Maintainer for Linux's ACPI implementation is Len Brown, and he signs patches using his Intel email address."[/i]
So [b]your[/b] problem is that [b]you[/b] have no idea what "the Maintainer" of a Linux subsystem does. Which in turn implies that your "role as the engineer in charge of OS support for one of the top three OEMs" doesn't [i]even remotely[/i] cover any Linux-based OS.
[i]"Still you have the nerve to attack my post."[/i]
Oh my! [b]Now[/b] I'm scared! You really shouldn't advertise your insecurities like this in a public forum.
Let me simplify this so even you can understand.
Your attempts to use misdirection are futile. This is not about the Linux development model which I am very aware of. That is a red herring! What we are talking about is the ridiculous claim that Intel is behind ACPI support for Linux. Take your own insecurities some where they are appreciated. You are coming off as uniformed and hysterical!
Just calm down and learn to read.
If you look back, you'll see that I [b]actually[/b] said (and repeated):
"[i][T]he Maintainer for Linux's ACPI implementation is Len Brown, and he signs patches using his Intel email address.[/i]"
Intel [b]is[/b] actively involved in writing the Linux kernel's ACPI support. That's a demonstrable [b]fact[/b].
[i]"Your attempts to use misdirection are futile. This is not about the Linux development model which I am very aware of."[/i]
Except that you clearly [b]don't[/b], because you obviously don't know what the Maintainer of a Linux subsystem does.
[i]"What we are talking about is the ridiculous claim that Intel is behind ACPI support for Linux."[/i]
What on Earth is so ridiculous about Intel, co-author of ACPI, helping Linux support ACPI? Have you misunderstood me?
And the purpose behind this thread was to show that when you said:
"[i]The truth is it is Linux that is behind in implimenting(sic) ACPI[/i]"
that you were spreading FUD. The [i]real[/i] truth is that one ACPI co-author writes Windows' ACPI support (all by itself), and the other leads the development of Linux's ACPI support.
"[i]You are coming off as uniformed and hysterical![/i]"
Err, no. That's [u]definitely[/u] you.