From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article ,   
   Scott Lurndal  wrote:   
   >cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:   
   >>In article ,   
   >>wolfgang kern   wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>On 22/03/2023 01:14, Dan Cross wrote:   
   >>>> So, is anyone here actually working on developing real, novel   
   >>>> operating systems on modern hardware here?  It would be   
   >>>> interesting to have a USENET outlet for such things, which I had   
   >>>> hoped this newsgroup might be, but it seems dominated by other   
   >>>> things.   
   >>>   
   >>>me too like to see attempts to create an UEFI compliant OS from scratch   
   >>>w/o reusing C-libraries nor copies from already existing Lonnix/M$.   
   >>>   
   >>>My own OS retired with me (1985..2018). Contracts end Dec.2024.   
   >>>I'm too old for a complete restart on new motherboards, they all are   
   >>>UEFI only now :(   
   >>   
   >>If you have a bootloader that is UEFI compliant, then can it not   
   >>load the OS, start it, and then basically get out of the way?   
   >   
   >That depends.  UEFI does more than just load and transfer control,   
   >it isolates the OS from various hardware dependencies making the   
   >OS more portable.   
      
   Eh....   
      
   >I can't imagine why someone would believe that the legacy BIOS   
   >is in any way superior to UEFI.   
      
   It is certainly not.   
      
   However, while it has utility, I wouldn't call it a "good"   
   interface.  Did you catch Mothy Roscoe's OSDI'21 keynote on   
   rediscovering hardware?   
   https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi21/presentation/fri-keynote   
      
   Don't get me wrong: interfaces are good.  But they're better   
   when they are well-architected.   
      
   UEFI is part of the interface that has congealed.   
      
   	- Dan C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)