Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Joker_vD 705 days ago
> instead depend on the Windows PE format, FAT filesystem, and an overcomplicated API.

Sometimes I wonder: if UEFI instead used ELF format, ext2 filesystem, and somewhat less complicated API (let's be honest: UEFI API is pretty straightforward if tedious), would people still complain about such dependencies? Or would it be deemed to be "fine" since it's not Microsoft technology even though it still would require one to use a multi-megabyte toolchain?
2 comments
p_l 705 days ago
Yes, also probably if you used FDT instead of ACPI despite all the problems that are fixed by ACPI but present with FDT, because "ACPI is evil" :V
link
blueflow 705 days ago
Its not the fact that its from Microsoft, its the fact that both FAT and PE are full of legacy cruft that is no less painful than going through real mode in the first place.

FAT originally only can do 8.3 filenames, but take a look at this to see what they hacked on top: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_of_the_FAT_file_system#...

This is all the legacy shit you now have to implement when you want a so-called "legacy-free" boot. Infuriating.

link
p_l 705 days ago
Meanwhile ext family, even in ext4, requires that you handle optimizations decisions made for Fujitsu Eagle and its contemporaries.

I could easily read NTFS with hexeditor, calculator and pen&paper. Trivial even (most annoying part was the run length packing in 4-bit nibbles).

I gave up trying to read ext's cylinder-oriented mappings.

And FWIW, everyone has a read/write driver for FAT with LFN (and UEFI generally avoids names outside 8.3 just in case), using a different filesystem would lead to issues with OS support.

PE itself isn't really that much of legacy cruft, especially as far as it is used in UEFI (sure, you have the "program not for MS-DOS header", but that's useful for the rare case someone tries to open it under FreeDOS).

link