this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2025
170 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

76337 readers
1620 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
170
China releases 'UBIOS' standard to replace UEFI — Huawei-backed BIOS firmware replacement charges China's domestic computing goals (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 1 day ago by schizoidman@lemmy.zip to c/technology@lemmy.world
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 37 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (6 children)

Our hardware has its own problems.

We rely way too much on x86 and ia64 architecture, both of which have only two big manufacturers in the world. That's not good because it's almost monopolies.

It would be better to have simpler chipsets that can be produced by more manufacturers worldwide, and especially ones that can be produced by smaller regional manufacturers.

On top of that we shouldn't distribute compiled binaries for the x86 and ia64 chipsets; instead program code should be distributed like .wasm, in a hardware-independent way, and compiled on the target device. That would enable that hardware can use any chipset it wants and there are no software incompatibilities because of it.

[–] certified_expert@lemmy.world 17 points 12 hours ago

RISC-V

  • royalty free
  • future-proof
  • extensible
  • base ISA is 40 instructions!
  • beautifully documented
  • can perform in a range of situations, from embedded to many-cores servers!
  • can handle petabytes of memory (the higher schemes)
  • no nonsense historic compatibility drag.
[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 23 points 21 hours ago

RISC-V is this

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 5 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

On top of that we shouldn’t distribute compiled binaries for the x86 and ia64 chipsets; instead program code should be distributed like .wasm, in a hardware-independent way, and compiled on the target device. That would enable that hardware can use any chipset it wants and there are no software incompatibilities because of it.

You're describing Gentoo Linux . . . which is not especially popular among Linux distributions even though it runs on just about anything. There may be a reason for that.

[–] krooklochurm@lemmy.ca 10 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

Well, they're talking about something lower level than the operating system. For one.

Secondly, every distro is inferior to the only perfect thing mankind has ever created: Hannah Montana Linux. If you're using anything else you may as well just break your computer and drink cyanide.

[–] uairhahs@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

Those are called duopolies (yes it's a very common thing)

[–] melfie@lemy.lol 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I have been waiting impatiently for WASM to really take off. I’d imagine that some day, it will be the most popular way to build software.

[–] embed_me@programming.dev 1 points 7 hours ago

But isn't WASM for web browsers? How will it be used to build general software

[–] Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago

How is performance though?

And honestly ARM isn't that much than x86 in terms of freedom and competition.

[–] daggermoon@lemmy.world 35 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Do we really need a UEFI replacement?

[–] DarkAri@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 17 hours ago

Yeah we should replace it with legacy bios.

[–] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Probably not. At least not right now. But China needs one apparently.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 39 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

My thoughts are "Why do they need one?". It's not like UEFI stops you doing anything.

UBIOS's unique features over UEFI include increased support for chiplets and other heterogeneous computing use-cases, such as multi-CPU motherboards with mismatching CPUs, something UEFI struggles with or does not support. It will also better support non-x86 CPU architectures such as ARM, RISC-V, and LoongArch, the first major Chinese operating system.

[citation needed]

I would say this is about increasing the level of control of the platform, not about technological issues.

Edit: For example, here's the RISC-V UEFI specification.

[–] HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

It's about having a home grown option. Can't trust Americans not to backdoor everything, and that generally conflicts with China's desire to backdoor everything.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 hours ago

america cannot really backdoor a specification. uefi is not software, but a specification, upon which firmwares can be built. that's another story that we happen to be calling the firmware on our computers "the uefi", but really there are quite a few different proprietary uefi implementations out there already.

so, if that ws the reason, they could have just created their own UEFI firmware, and not something different

[–] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 9 points 20 hours ago

Control is the most important thing to the CCP so it makes complete sense from their perspective. We would be free to buy into it but they would definitely force it on devices within China.

[–] monogram@feddit.nl 1 points 1 day ago

For x86 or ARM?

[–] oce@jlai.lu 87 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Does that mean I will have more choice in which surveillance agency I want to be spied by?

[–] UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (3 children)

UEFI is a standard, not a product. You could make your own even

[–] the_boxhead@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

https://libreboot.org/

Or use this…

[–] anon5621@lemmy.ml 5 points 21 hours ago

Tianocore open source uefi implementation exist for many years

[–] spacelord@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This doesn't support many boards.

[–] the_boxhead@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

True, but I really appreciate that someone is doing it. (It’s far beyond my capabilities…)

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

could

could in the same sense that i could check all software i use for bugs and malicious code. realistically, i can't, because it's way too much work.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 8 points 23 hours ago

But you could work together with other people, and you could be many people that each checked his/her part for malicious code.

[–] stupidcasey@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

So that just means UBIOS is explicitly for spying since UEFI is open source and a standard right?

[–] salacious_coaster@infosec.pub 40 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Maybe not, if Intel goes tits-up

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Implying Intel motherboards will ever support more than US govt approved technology now that they have a substantial holding in Intel

[–] T156@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

I think that's their point. You wouldn't have a choice again if Intel goes out of business.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day ago

Ouch.