>coreboot uses flashrom, which runs from the userspace (outside the kernel) and writes directly to the SPI (a small chip where the firmware is stored). Instead of verifying the update, it will allow anything using user id 0 (aka "sudo", "root" or "admin") to write to it.
This is their implementation. Coreboot doesn't care about how it's written. That is not a part of coreboot. You, as a vendor, are supposed to create something sensible.
>AMI ... offers many features, including a graphical interface. ... [Coreboot] has no dedicated interface, apart from a simple boot menu.
This is again a function of the payload. If they use tianacore as a payload, they'll get a similar menu as AMI. It's their job to pick and customise payloads. Coreboot doesn't handle that stuff.
"For example, the LabTop Mk IV combined with coreboot will offer approximately 8% more performance and around 20% longer battery life (with a record of 13 hours and 42 minutes for general use)."
Which is a bit of a WTF is different between the two. presumably they are sharing the low level intel powermgmt blobs, so why the significant power reduction?
>coreboot uses flashrom, which runs from the userspace (outside the kernel) and writes directly to the SPI (a small chip where the firmware is stored). Instead of verifying the update, it will allow anything using user id 0 (aka "sudo", "root" or "admin") to write to it.
This is their implementation. Coreboot doesn't care about how it's written. That is not a part of coreboot. You, as a vendor, are supposed to create something sensible.
>AMI ... offers many features, including a graphical interface. ... [Coreboot] has no dedicated interface, apart from a simple boot menu.
This is again a function of the payload. If they use tianacore as a payload, they'll get a similar menu as AMI. It's their job to pick and customise payloads. Coreboot doesn't handle that stuff.