Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Legacy BIOS Support Remains Important For Some On Fedora, May Shift Responsibility To SIG

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
    I'm going to parrot my talking points from the last article about this:

    All they have to do is adopt the Clover Bootloader for x86_64 platforms...
    This was my first thought (not Clover specifically, but DUET and/or tiano). However this would not solved the problem that Fedora is trying to address: simplify the installer.
    After a linux boot, it doesn't matter if it was started from a bios, from a firmware or from UEFI. In fact the kernel linux already abstracts the underling firmware/bios. The kernel image is the same, both for the bios that uefi.

    The complexity is in the linux installer and very few specific packages that deal with the underling firmware.

    What fedora is trying is to simplify the burner of supporting both the bios and the uefi; likely the first needs[*] a DOS partition scheme, where the latter mandates a GPT one. The bootloaders are different (grub vs grub-uefi), so the bootloader installer.

    I am not saying that I fully agree with the Fedora idea, however using another bootloader is not a simplification of the installer. So likely it is not the solution.

    I have to point out that the linux already installed will be supported (you can upgrade). It will be impossible to install a new Fedora to an old bios computer.

    Finally I am curious about the system that are uefi but boots in legacy mode because thy saw a DOS partition....[*] I know that it is possible to use a GPT partition schema in a legacy bios environment. But covering this adds others complexity instead of a simplification.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Alexmitter View Post
      Its 2022, the last machine I have without EFI support is a i286 notebook. I wonder how large the user-base of systems older then 15 years really is. A high end system from back in those days is slower then a cheap notebook is today.
      It has nothing to do with 15 years, only with systems that shipped with windows or macOS. I bought an athlon 200ge for my home server, and a ryzen 3400 (picasso) desktop system in the second half of 2019. Both use BIOS booting (why would I want the general inconvenience of UEFI if I can avoid it ?). Unfortunately, ryzen2 and ryzen3 APUs do seem to require UEFI.

      Would these two systems of mine support being booted with UEFI ? Probably, but I'd have to throw away the current systems (plural) and go from a simple "this is how to fix grub when you screw up" to jumping through holes to find out what strangenesses the mobo manufacturers decided to come up with.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by zerothruster View Post

        Unfortunately, ryzen2 and ryzen3 APUs do seem to require UEFI.
        This sounds unlikely. As far as firmware goes, all that matters to an x86 CPU is that the EEPROM gets mapped to the right address. It is likely that no vendors of mobos with the right socket provide BIOS versions tho.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by sinepgib View Post

          This sounds unlikely. As far as firmware goes, all that matters to an x86 CPU is that the EEPROM gets mapped to the right address. It is likely that no vendors of mobos with the right socket provide BIOS versions tho.
          I gave you a 'like' because you are technically correct.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by willmore View Post

            I'm going to place some of that blame on Apple because they pushed it early on and did things Their Way(tm). I'd love to see some major manufacturer get behind one of the open UEFI firmwares and use it for all of their products. Maybe that would push the industry towards the right direction.
            Have you read Bill Gates's 1999 infamous email about ACPI ?

            http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowa...00/PX03020.pdf

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Slartifartblast View Post

              Have you read Bill Gates's 1999 infamous email about ACPI ?

              http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowa...00/PX03020.pdf
              Microsoft being evil doesn't rule out Apple being evil.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by willmore View Post

                Microsoft being evil doesn't rule out Apple being evil.
                I have no argument with that, I despise Apple and their ransomwares.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by arun54321 View Post

                  That's not true. I have an HP laptop and it does not boot windows uefi by default and it is not hardcoded.
                  Then it was probably fixed in your machine but that doesn't mean it wasn't present in other machines. You can easily verify that by yourself, there are plenty of discussions mentioning this issue. It's also pointed in Arch Wiki in HP laptops page.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X