• JakenVeina@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 年前

    Did anyone really think that making UEFI systems the equivalent of a mini OS was a good idea? Or having them be accessible to the proper OS? Was there really no pushback, when UEFI was being standardized, to say “images that an OS can write to are not critical to initializing hardware functionality, don’t include that”? Was that question not asked for every single piece of functionality in the standard?

    • interceder270@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 年前

      Less is more. I feel we’ve forgotten that so worthless designers can justify their useless existences.

      • Shareni@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 年前

        Yeah, the designers were lobbying to force showing hardware ads during boot…

        Less is more.

        Listen to your own maxim.

    • HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      2 年前

      It breaks the cardinal rule of executing privileged code: Only code that absolutely needs to be privilaged should be privileged.

      If they really wanted to have their logo in the boot screen, why can’t they just provide the image to the OS and request through some API that they display it? The UEFI and OS do a ton of back and fourth communication at boot so why can’t this be apart of that? (It’s not because then the OS and by extension the user can much more easily refuse to display what is essentially an ad for the hardware vendor right? They’d never put “features” in privileged code just to stop the user from doing anything about it… right?)