On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 09:15, Chris Adams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, Alessandro Baggi <alessandro.baggi@xxxxxxxxx> said:
> > you are right but is not UEFI a standard and it shouldn't work the
> > same on several vendors? I ask this because this patch broken all my
> > uefi workstations.
>
> The great thing about standards is there's so many to choose from! Also
> relevant: https://xkcd.com/927/
>
> UEFI has gone through a number of revisions over the years, and has
> optional bits like Secure Boot (which itself has gone through
> revisions). Almost any set of standards has undefined corners where
> vendors interpret things differently. Vendors also have bugs in weird
> places sometimes.
>
I go with the lines from Pirates of the Carribean movie.. it is less
of a rigid code and more a set of guidelines. Computer programmers are
a surly lot, and most take any MUST/SHALL in a standard a personal
challenge on how to make it pass a test but do so in an interesting
way.
> The firmware and boot loaders arguably are the least "exercised" parts
> of a system - both change rarely and there are few implementations.
> There's not many combinations, and they don't change a lot.
>
> I'm interested to read about the cause of this issue - something like
> this can be a lesson on "hmm, hadn't thought of that before" type things
> to watch for in other areas.
> --
> Chris Adams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
