On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 09:15, Chris Adams <linux at cmadams.net> wrote: > > Once upon a time, Alessandro Baggi <alessandro.baggi at gmail.com> 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 at cmadams.net> > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- Stephen J Smoogen.