[SeaBIOS] SeaBIOS vs other BIOS?

[Gleb Natapov]

On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 10:44:21AM +0200, Fred . wrote:
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Gleb Natapov <gleb at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 10:26:31PM +0200, Fred . wrote:
> >> And in terms of standards compliance?
> >>
> >> I know proprietary BIOS have advantage when it comes to SMBIOS due to
> >> the implementation in SeaBIOS lagging behind several versions.
> >>
> >> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Peter Stuge <peter at stuge.se> wrote:
> >> > Fred . wrote:
> >> >> How is SeaBIOS working towards the non-technical goals of the project?
> >> >
> >> > This is not so clear. I'm not even sure that there are non-technical
> >> > goals for the project.
> >> >
> >> > Competing with commercial BIOS products would require a company to
> >> > put a SeaBIOS-based PC firmware to market, quite likely in concert
> >> > with coreboot. I know of one company which offers among other things
> >> > coreboot services, Sage Engineering, who are quite active in the
> >> > coreboot community. http://www.se-eng.com/coreboot.html
> >> >
> >> > But even so you can see that the business model is different from
> >> > commercial BIOS products, and already this small difference presents
> >> > a non-technical challenge.
> >>
> >> SeaBIOS lacks documentation.
> >> It lacks communication.
> >> The website is not updated with news about the development.
> >> There is no mention of what's new, whats planned, etc.
> > Now I am curious what other BIOSes give you all that? In all that points
> > Seabios in not different from most other open source project.
> >
> > --
> >                        Gleb.
> 
> Perhaps other BIOS have private channels to make such communications
> directly to their customers.
SeaBIOS customers pretty much define SeaBIOS roadmap, so perhaps such
communication is unnecessary.

> Or perhaps they don't need to due to having been in the BIOS game
> pretty much since it started.
Or perhaps they do not care because most of the BIOS "customers" do not
aware of its existence or that they have an alternative?

> 
> I think information, documentation, roadmaps, public announcements,
> timely communication would be good.

--
			Gleb.