swapping disk with UEFI hardware - a dead end?

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Fri Jun 29 00:18:51 UTC 2012

On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 17:55 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:

> How about we save the firmware puke in the face for when there's
> meaningful ambiguity involved?

Who is the 'we' here? Any conceivable 'we' which might be held to exist
in the context of the Fedora development list does not, to me, seem to
include 'Lenovo firmware engineers'.

Whether you're right or Peter is (my money's on Peter...), this argument
seems almost a sideshow: even if you're right and Lenovo's UEFI firmware
implementation is a 'bad' one, so what? Manufacturers have been shipping
bad firmwares for decades and there are no signs that this is going to
stop in the glorious new UEFI era. It has long been established that, in
practice, we do our best to work around poor firmware implementations
where we can. Even if you win the argument, we'll probably _still_ wind
up doing what Peter has proposed in Fedora. Essentially it seems to me
that all you're arguing about is whether we call that 'implementing the
UEFI spec' or 'working around poor UEFI implementations', which doesn't
seem like something it's worth wasting a day's email time arguing about.
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora

More information about the devel mailing list