σοβαρότατες αμβιφολίες για το ¨σκάνδαλο” της Foxconn

O σναγνώστης antilinuxας έκανε ένα σχόλιο στο άρθρο μου σχετικά με το “σκάνδαλο” της Foxconn με ένα λινκ που είναι εξαιρετικά ενδιαφέρον.


Testing 2.6.27-rc2 with the current released (not development) BIOS on the Foxconn G33M reveals the following:

  • There are no ACPI errors on boot, other than the (irrelevant) OEMB table (there are in previous kernels, stuff’s clearly been fixed in .26 or so. Can’t really be bothered digging through to find out what)
  • The system fails to reboot if it has been suspended and resumed. The fix is three lines long, one of which is a comment and one of which is blank.
  • The system is otherwise perfectly stable.

Summary: Almost all problems caused by bugs in Linux, one problem caused by BIOS vendors interpreting the ACPI specification differently to the Linux implementation and trivially worked around. No sabotage.

Thanks very much to Carl at Foxconn for being able to get me information about what was causing the reboot issue – I spent significantly longer putting the system together than I did fixing it.

Από όσο κατάλαβα δεν πρόκειτα για κάποια τρομερή συνωμωσία αντιθέτος πρόκειτε για σφάλμα στο πυρήμα το οποίο διορθώθηκε.

η “κλειστές” μητρικές! (η Foxconn, η MS και ο Ryan και τα μονοπώλια) 10

Που λέτε μια μέρα ένα παλικάρι είχε αγοράσει μια μητρική από μια εταιρεία που λέγεται Foxconn. Που λέτε το παλικάρι αυτό (o Ryan aka TheAlMightyCthulu) παρατήρησε ότι κάτι δεν πήγαινε καλά με την μητρική του, έμοιαζε να μην μπορεί να κάνει σωστά την δουλειά της. Λες και δεν ακολουθούσε τα στάνταρ της βιομηχανίας. Χμμμ για δούμε τι βρήκε με το compiler του BIOS που δίνει η Intel. (Μάλλον θα το βρείτε στα repositories της διανομής σας ως iasl).

Το παλικάρι ουσιαστικά “βλέπει” ότι το BIOS στο μηχάνημα του συμπεριφέρεται διαφορετικά στα Windows Vista από ότι στο Linux.

Φυσικά το παλικάρι το ανάφερε στην κατασκευάστρια (όπως επισημαίνω ότι πρέπει όλοι μας να προσπαθούμε να κάνουμε) καθώς είναι σημαντικό οι εταιρείες να ενημερώνονται για το πως το υλικό τους δουλεύει με το λογισμικό που χρησιμοποιούμε ειδικά όταν αυτό είναι ανοιχτού κώδικα και μπορούν και οι ίδιες να συμβάλουν ώστε να συνεργάζεται καλύτερα με τα μηχανήματα που παρέχουν στην αγορά. Δείτε όμως τον τρόπο που τον αντιμετωπίζουν τον άνθρωπο όπως το δημοσιεύει στα ubuntuforums.


ACPI issues, cannot reboot after having used suspend

Jul 22 08:37:53 ryan-pc kernel: ACPI: FACS 7FFBE000, 0040
Jul 22 08:37:53 ryan-pc kernel: ACPI: FACS 7FFBE000, 0040
Jul 22 08:37:53 ryan-pc kernel: ACPI: FACS 7FFBE000, 0040
Jul 22 08:37:53 ryan-pc kernel: ACPI: FACS 7FFBE000, 0040
Jul 22 08:37:53 ryan-pc kernel: ACPI Warning (tbutils-0217): Incorrect checksum in table [OEMB] – 70, should be 69 [20070126]

I get these messages in my system log at boot, I also fail to reboot after having used suspend in a session, it hangs and plays a continued beep on the PC speaker.


Dear Ryan:

Do you get the same beep codes if you were to remove all RAM out and then turn the system ON again?


No, because then I wouldn’t be able to boot into Linux, suspend to RAM, to get the ACPI failure, have syslogd pollute my /var/log/messages file with it, or read about it in my system log.

In particular, the number of quirks that the kernel has to use, and this invalid checksum are what has me nervous.

If you need me to attach the full contents of /var/log/messages, I can do so.


Dear Ryan:

This board was never certified for Linux. It is only certified for Vista. See URL below. So please test under Vista. Does this issue also occured under Vista or Winxp?…ification.aspx


Well, this is a replacement for a dead Intel board (a 945g that fully supported ACPI), Vista was never really up for consideration, and I’m not about to go buy a copy to find out.

The ACPI specs are there for a reason, and broken BIOS’s like what is in this motherboard are the reason standard ACPI does not work, I’ve taken the liberty of filing the report in, Red Hat, and Canonical’s Ubuntu bug tracking systems, and posting the contents of my kernel error log on my blog, which is in the first several results if you Google search “Foxconn G33M” or “Foxconn G33M-s”, “Foxconn Linux”, etc, as well as prominently in other search formats, so hopefully this will save other people from a bad purchase, and hopefully can work around your broken BIOS in 2.6.26, as I understand that kernel is more forgiving of poorly written BIOSes built for Windows.

I’ve already gotten several dozen hits on those pages, so you guys are only hurting yourselves in the long run, by using bad BIOS ROMs, as people like me are quite vocal when dealing with a bad product.


Dear Ryan,

Making idle treats is not going to solve anything.

As already stated this model has not been certified under Linux nor supported.

As you are unhappy with the product- using a non-support operating system nor certified, please contact your reseller for a refund.


Yeah, well, I allege that you guys thoroughly suck.

Learn how to write a BIOS before you go selling hardware with falsified specs.


I’ve been debugging your AMI BIOS, and the ACPI support on it is far from within compliance with the standards, I’ve dumped out the debugging data into Canonical’s Launchpad bug tracking system so that we may be able to support some sort of a workaround for the bad ACPI tables in your BIOS, I would hope that you will be part of the solution instead of the problem, alienating customers and telling them to go buy a copy of Windows Vista is not service, your product claims to be ACPI compliant and is not, therefore you are falsely advertising it with features it isn’t capable of.

I would ask that you issue an update that doesn’t make it dependent upon Windows Hardware Error Architecture, but that decision is up to you.

Please find all relevant data here:

Bug #251338 in Ubuntu: “Bad ACPI support on Foxconn G33M/G33M-S motherboards with AMI BIOS”…ux/+bug/251338

I appreciate your consideration in this matter.



Dear Ryan,

You are incorrect in that the motherboard is not ACPI complaint. If it were not, then it would not have received Microsoft Certification for WHQL.

Refer to:…33M-S&oid=3179

As already stated, this model has not been certified under Linux nor supported.

It has been marketed as a Microsoft Certified Motherboard for their operating systems.


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.

So while I accept that you’ve gotten some kind of Microsoft Certification (doesn’t surprise me), that does not make your board ACPI capable, just that Windows is better at coping with glitches custom tailored to it, for this purpose.


Dear Ryan,

Stop sending us these!!!


Your BIOS is actually pretty shoddy, I’ve taken the liberty of posting everything that’s wrong with the DSDT lookup tables and how to fix some of it so the community that has already purchased your filth can make do with it, also, it’s now pretty much impossible to google Foxconn and Linux in the same sentence without getting hit by the truth, that your boards aren’t good enough to handle it.

Have a very nice day.


Dear Ryan,

Surely this is the way to ask for us to attempt to fix something that is not supported in the first place.


Would it be so difficult? I mean really? I suppose you’ve never heard of building a happy customer base vs. just angering everyone that deals with your products to the point they make sure others don’t make the mistake of buying them.

You know, I have several computers, and they all support any OS I want to put there, as well they should, if you can’t fix the damaged BIOS you put there intentionally, can you at least put a big thing on the site that says no LInux support so people won’t make the mistake of buying your stuff?

Your DSDT table looks like it was written by a first year computer science student, it is scary, I will not just shut up and go away until I feel like I’ve been done right, this can end up on Digg, Slashdot, filed with the FTC that you are passing bad ACPI data on to Linux specifically.

I saw you targeting Linux with an intentionally broken ACPI table, you also have one for NT and ME, a separate one for newer NT variants like 2000, XP, Vista, and 2003/2008 Server, I’m sure that if you actually wrote to Intel ACPI specs instead of whatever quirks you can get away with for 8 versions of Windows and then go to the trouble of giving a botched table to Linux (How much *is* Microsoft paying you?) it would end up working a lot better, but I have this idea you don’t want it to.

Τι να πω εγώ εδώ; O Ryan λέει ότι η Foxconn “τα πέρνει” από την MS για να μην δουλεύουν οι μητρικές της σε Linux. Χμμμ… ίσως έχει δίκιο αλλά ίσως και όχι. Ωστόσο πρέπει να πούμε ότι η MS έχει καταδικαστεί σε Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες (εντάξει στην Αμερική τα βρήκε με συμφωνία) για μονοπωλιακές πρακτικές. Ένα επίσης ιδιαίτερα ενδιαφέρων e-mail του ίδιου του ιδρυτή της Microsoft που χρησιμοποιήθηκε στην υπόθεση Comes εναντίον Microsoft λέει τα εξής προφητικά πράγματα.

One thing I find myself wondering about is whether we shouldn’t try to make the “ACPI” extensions somehow Windows specific.

It seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without having to do the work.

Maybe there is no way to avoid this problem but it does bother me.

Maybe we could define the API’s so that they work well with NT and not the others even if they are open.

Or maybe we could patent something related to this.

Και για του λόγου το αληθές παραθέτω σύνδεσμο σε σχετικό pdf για το επίμαχο email του Gates σχετικά με το ACPI Τώρα να πω την πάσα αλήθεια όλα αυτά ίσως σε ένα δικαστήριο δεν αποδεικνύουν κάτι. Αλλά κακά τα ψέματα τελικός κριτής είναι πάντα ο αγοραστής.

Ενδιαφέρουσες συζητήσεις σχετικά με το εν λόγω ζήτημα έχουν αρχίσει στο slashdot,στο digg και στο reddit.