
 Foxconn deliberately sabotaging their BIOS to destroy Linux ACPI - nickb
http://ubuntu-virginia.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=869249
======
c0un7d0wn
[http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/...](http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03020.pdf)

------
dandelany
"it appears they're trying to crash the kernel by locking a region of memory
that shouldn't be locked"

...or, they're second-rate programmers who don't test their code very
thoroughly.

Yes, he is going overboard by claiming "deliberate sabotage." Every hacker
wants his 15 minutes of /., and he got his. However, the important overlooked
fact here is about halfway down in his post:

"I've found separate DSDT tables that the BIOS hands to Linux specifically,
changing it to point to the DSDT tables Vista gets fixes all Linux issues with
this board."

That is, the problem isn't that they screwed up the Linux implementation of
their BIOS, it's that they created different rules for Linux to follow when
the Vista ones worked just fine. I still have a hard time attributing it to
malice, but this is very asinine indeed.

~~~
rit
Interestingly enough though...

FoxConn says in the email replies that they DONT SUPPORT Linux.

However, they have code specifically written for it.

Strange, even if it isn't deliberate sabotage.

~~~
sysop073
This was what made me thing they did it intentionally. They don't support
Linux, and yet they intentionally detect Linux and have special code written
for it that doesn't work, when the standard code does work. That's incredibly
suspicious, it's like when Hotmail decided to "only support Internet Explorer"
by sniffing the user agent string when it actually worked fine on Firefox

------
kenver
To quote wikipedia! "A technical standard is an established norm or
requirement. It is usually a formal document that establishes uniform
engineering or technical criteria, methods, processes and practices."

If they're following the standard they shouldn't need to cater for different
OS's - one will do.

From the sound of it they've probably copy/pasted chunks of stuff, then edited
the windows stuff to make that work and forgot about the linux bits.

There's probably no malice involved here but it sounds like a massive bodge,
which is totally unprofessional for a commercial product.

------
jm4
This is a very informative thread for anyone having ACPI problems with a
Foxconn board, but it's a stretch to say they've gone out of their way to
deliberately sabotage their own product in order to inconvenience the tiny
percentage of their own customers who choose to use Linux. More likely, this
is simply incompetence.

I've been using Linux for almost 10 years so I'm very familiar with this sort
of experience and understand this guy's frustration completely. However, he is
jumping to a lot of conclusions based on very little information. Before even
asking for help he sent off a complaint to the FTC. Foxconn's support tried to
work with him after that to fix his problem and he acted like a total jerk.

With these chicken little types of articles and forums threads being plastered
all over every social news site it's no wonder a lot of hardware vendors don't
want to officially support Linux. When something doesn't work people always
assume the worst and they get burned for it. The more likely scenario is that
many of these companies don't have enough Linux experience to ensure the same
kind of quality they can with something as familiar as Windows.

~~~
ajross
I don't see where Foxconn "tried to work with him", frankly. They asked one
question (which completely missed the point: removing RAM doesn't tell you
anything about ACPI behavior) and then punted with "we don't support linux". I
don't know about you, but that's not the support that _I_ want from my
hardware vendors.

I mean, sure, the guy might be a paranoid jerk. But Foxconn is hardly
blameless here.

~~~
jm4
Of course they're not blameless. They're just another crappy vendor that, at
best, puts a half effort into supporting Linux. Even cursory research probably
would have revealed this before the guy purchased the hardware. The first clue
that a little research might be necessary is that Foxconn doesn't even claim
to support Linux.

The point I was trying to make is this is about the worst way to go about
solving a problem like this. Assuming, and then treating people as if they're
out to get you is going to get this guy and the Linux community exactly
nowhere.

What do we know? Maybe Foxconn made a genuine attempt at providing some
unofficial Linux support and just screwed up. Dealing with them as if they're
part of some conspiracy to destroy Linux is not only downright foolish but
really hurts the cause. If all a company is going to get is grief from a bunch
of rabid bloggers, who can blame them for falling back on the "we don't
support linux" excuse?

The simple solution is to let them know in a polite and respectful way that
you're having a problem with the hardware. They can choose to fix it or not
and you can choose to keep buying their products or not.

------
gm
So you are using a motherboard under conditions that they state it's not
certified for... Where's the news here?

Is this just a pissing match gone bad?

"I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a copy of Vista just to get the crashing
caused by Foxconn's BIOS to stop, I am not going to be terrorized."

Isn't this whole thing the result of bad research before purchase?

About the only thing interesting about this is if the guy gets sued under DMCA
for disassembling the BIOS of the motherboard.

~~~
LogicHoleFlaw
The point is that the motherboard was advertised as being ACPI compliant. It
is not. In fact, it checks specifically for Linux ands hands back ACPI data
which crashes the machine.

I'm not certain what the potential anti-trust implications are.

~~~
gm
But it's still not Linux certified.

About the DMCA, yes it sucks, and yes, it would be irrational to sue because
of that, that's why it would be interesting. Anyway, not that I am hoping for
that. Stupid laws should go away.

~~~
ajross
I'm not following your logic. ACPI is a published, open standard. Foxconn
doesn't need to do _anything_ for "linux" or "windows" specifically. They just
put the tables in memory and hand them to the OS to use.

But they aren't. They're specifically testing for OS versions and handing back
different (and, in this case, broken) data to "linux" software. At best,
that's horribly broken and a reason to avoid Foxconn hardware. Excusing it
with this "Certification(tm)" canard is just spin, and you appear to have
fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

~~~
gm
Well, you guys can mod me down all you want, but the fact remains, they said
the motherboard itself is not certified for Linux, so putting Linux on it is a
gamble, regardless of the ACPI standard. "Run an O/S we support, and tell us
if the motherboard still does not work": Pretty standard response when you try
to do something unsupported and then run into trouble. There's no manufacturer
that's going to tell you otherwise. Try and complain to Intel about
overclocking problems with their motherboards: They will first say "turn off
the overclocking and tell me if it does not work still. Oh, and you have just
voided your warranty."

Just switch brands already. I have my own brand that I like for MBs exactly
because I have never had to put up with this cheesy crap from the mfg I use.
Foxconn sucks for pulling this crap, so the guy writing the article should
stay away from retard brands. Next time, spend the extra $10 or whatever and
get a good motherboard. That is the real lesson I see in all of this.

~~~
krschultz
I don't think you understand the problem here. The board works under Linux if
the BIOS is modified to follow the ACPI spec, but under their own
implementation it does not follow the spec. Thus at the minimum it is a faulty
product that does not match the advertisement, and at worst it is an anti-
trust violation. Certified or not, recommended or not, warranty or not, it
does not fulfill the spec. The fact that Vista covers this up does not mean
that it fits the spec when running Vista, no matter how you slice it, it is
broken.

~~~
gm
I just think that it's gonna be hard for anyone who can do something about
this to give a sh*t. Anti-trust instead of false advertising? Now I know for a
fact nothing's gonna happen. Anti-trust cases are about the hardest to do.

Anti-trust... Why would that be anti-trust anyway? Where do monopolies come
into play?

~~~
gm
From: <http://mjg59.livejournal.com/94905.html>

"Anyway. Accusing companies of conspiring against us when the most likely
explanation is simply that they don't care is a fucking ridiculous thing to do
and does nothing to get rid of the impression that Linux users are a bunch of
whining childish hatemongers. Next time, try talking to someone who actually
understands this stuff first?"

Thank you, Matt.

Now all you downmodders, please upmod me :-)

Seriously, you guys should not downmod just because a post disagrees with you.

~~~
jcl
"I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement." -- PG

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171>

