In 2019, Most Linux Distributions Still Aren't Restricting Dmesg Access

[Weasel]

A MBR disk is much easier to clone than an EFI disk so it is better to use the MBR partition. Free easy to use Linux EFI disk cloning tools do not exists. For a desktop use, easy to use and system performance have a higher priority than security and that is why the installer of my distribution uses a single MBR partition and CONFIG_SECURITY_DMESG_RESTRICT is disabled.

Unless I need a partition of more than 2 TB (very unlikely on SSDs) I always go for MBR. It's simple and reliable.

EFI is an over-engineered piece of shit.

[beniwtv]

A MBR disk is much easier to clone than an EFI disk so it is better to use the MBR partition. Free easy to use Linux EFI disk cloning tools do not exists. For a desktop use, easy to use and system performance have a higher priority than security and that is why the installer of my distribution uses a single MBR partition and CONFIG_SECURITY_DMESG_RESTRICT is disabled.

No. There is 0 difference between GPT and MBR disks - EFI boot just has an additional FAT32 partition where the booloader(s) are located. Clonezilla and all partition tools can clone disks and partitions easily, same with MBR disks. Linux can handle GPT and MBR disks the same way just fine.

You may want to read up here, too:

https://clonezilla.org/

Unless I need a partition of more than 2 TB (very unlikely on SSDs) I always go for MBR. It's simple and reliable.

Except that it isn't. MBR is hidden in the first sector of your hard drive / USB stick / whatever. You have to rely on tools to install an MBR and you have no way of knowing the system will boot afterwards. It's very hard to diagnose if the system doesn't boot from it after. More so for inexperienced users.

With EFI, create a partition, format it, assign the ESP flag (all that can be done via GUI, and often happens automatically if you select to create an EFI partition), copy bootloader to a well-known location on the partition you just created. Done. If you do make a mistake, you can access that partition and correct the file. Hell, the better EFI systems provide the EFI shell you can boot into and then just cd to your bootloader and execute it, like in a Linux shell.

Much easier.

[Weasel]

Except that it isn't. MBR is hidden in the first sector of your hard drive / USB stick / whatever. You have to rely on tools to install an MBR and you have no way of knowing the system will boot afterwards. It's very hard to diagnose if the system doesn't boot from it after. More so for inexperienced users.

With EFI, create a partition, format it, assign the ESP flag (all that can be done via GUI, and often happens automatically if you select to create an EFI partition), copy bootloader to a well-known location on the partition you just created. Done. If you do make a mistake, you can access that partition and correct the file. Hell, the better EFI systems provide the EFI shell you can boot into and then just cd to your bootloader and execute it, like in a Linux shell.

Much easier.

I don't see your point. You can format for MBR also "via GUI". You seem to somehow think manipulating a FAT32 partition is easier than manipulating the "first sector". It's not. In fact, because you need to have that partition in the first place is why it sucks. Its binary format is also a bit over-engineered and harder to modify manually.

[beniwtv]

I don't see your point. You can format for MBR also "via GUI". You seem to somehow think manipulating a FAT32 partition is easier than manipulating the "first sector". It's not. In fact, because you need to have that partition in the first place is why it sucks. Its binary format is also a bit over-engineered and harder to modify manually.

I never said you can't format it via GUI - all I said is it's easier to make a system bootable with EFI than MBR - MBR is hidden, obsure, making an EFI system bootable is just copy & paste the bootloader file to a FAT32 partition, and maybe set ESP flag in case of an internal HDD. USB disks don't even need that.

[aht0]

So much bs about EFI being "easier". Never have had so much grief with MBR. And so many extra loops to jump through.

[beniwtv]

So much bs about EFI being "easier". Never have had so much grief with MBR. And so many extra loops to jump through.

Care to elaborate a bit?

As I explained above, booting EFI is literally copying the bootloader file to EFI/boot/bootx64.efi on the FAT 12/16/32 partition of the USB disk. You can do that with your favorite file manager. If on internal HDD, additionally mark the FAT 12/16/32 partition as ESP and boot.

Booting a PC literally can't get any easier.

[Weasel]

Care to elaborate a bit?

As I explained above, booting EFI is literally copying the bootloader file to EFI/boot/bootx64.efi on the FAT 12/16/32 partition of the USB disk. You can do that with your favorite file manager. If on internal HDD, additionally mark the FAT 12/16/32 partition as ESP and boot.

Booting a PC literally can't get any easier.

You forgot the part about making the FAT32 partition in the first place, where with MBR you just add the boot sector and you're done, no extra partitioning needed.

I get it, you're scared of modifying a "sector" manually and think "copying a file" is much easier to grasp, but partitioning isn't.

[beniwtv]

You forgot the part about making the FAT32 partition in the first place, where with MBR you just add the boot sector and you're done, no extra partitioning needed.

I get it, you're scared of modifying a "sector" manually and think "copying a file" is much easier to grasp, but partitioning isn't.

You really want to tell me it's easier for users to manually add a MBR to a disk with obscure command line tools (or REALLY manually by modifying sectors as you say) as opposed to them right-clicking, hitting format, and copying files over?

[aht0]

Care to elaborate a bit?

As I explained above, booting EFI is literally copying the bootloader file to EFI/boot/bootx64.efi on the FAT 12/16/32 partition of the USB disk. You can do that with your favorite file manager. If on internal HDD, additionally mark the FAT 12/16/32 partition as ESP and boot.

Booting a PC literally can't get any easier.

Simple. With MBR I DO NOT HAVE TO muck around with neither EFI-FAT partitions nor bootloader files. By definition, it already makes it simpler. It also makes me not dependent on particular UEFI implementation on particular hardware, which might have it's own quirks or problems. For example: One of my past Acer laptops had BIOS's UEFI mode locked to Windows and not changeable. Either use MBR for Unix-like OS'es or you'd be out of luck.

Setting the MBR boot up? Dead simple. For example, when I want FreeBSD/Windows dual-boot, all I have to do is boot0cfg -B ada0 in flippin' FreeBSD shell. And it works like charm. Next boot, FreeBSD boot loader presents me with appropriate F1/F2/F-x shortcuts I can use to boot for booting up the OS I want.

Getting EFI dual-boot working for same 2 OSes is the exact opposite, true pita, I'd have to use rEFInd 3rd party tool to start with, which adds bunch of extra steps to the process. So claiming that setting up EFI boot is somehow easier is plain wrong, considering that it's by itself grossly over-engineered and over-complicated compared to MBR, which does not even have crypthography.

I want to restore MSDOS/Windows MBR boot sectors? fdisk /fixmbr. I want to clone disk? Just dd it. With EFI boot I'd always have to take extra steps there. Not so with MBR.

Using command line tool for single command is always simpler than doing multiple steps like creating extra partitions, copying over files, etc. Single step vs multiple steps.

[beniwtv]

Simple. With MBR I DO NOT HAVE TO muck around with neither EFI-FAT partitions nor bootloader files. By definition, it already makes it simpler. It also makes me not dependent on particular UEFI implementation on particular hardware, which might have it's own quirks or problems. For example: One of my past Acer laptops had BIOS's UEFI mode locked to Windows and not changeable. Either use MBR for Unix-like OS'es or you'd be out of luck.

Except that this has nothing to do with EFI. If your laptop vendor does anti-consumer stuff like that, it's not EFI's fault, go complain to Acer / Microsoft.

Setting the MBR boot up? Dead simple. For example, when I want FreeBSD/Windows dual-boot, all I have to do is boot0cfg -B ada0 in flippin' FreeBSD shell. And it works like charm. Next boot, FreeBSD boot loader presents me with appropriate F1/F2/F-x shortcuts I can use to boot for booting up the OS I want.

Except that it isn't that simple. It would be simple if that command always worked. However it does not. I've had plenty of cases of tools claiming to install a bootloader in MBR just to have the computer not boot from it. Who knows what went wrong, as a user I have no way of debugging this really, unless I have the talent to exactly know how to inspect my HDD sectors to check for a proper bootloader.

Getting EFI dual-boot working for same 2 OSes is the exact opposite, true pita, I'd have to use rEFInd 3rd party tool to start with, which adds bunch of extra steps to the process. So claiming that setting up EFI boot is somehow easier is plain wrong, considering that it's by itself grossly over-engineered and over-complicated compared to MBR, which does not even have crypthography.

No, EFI you can just copy both bootloaders to it and choose in your BIOS or even EFI shell which to boot. Or even, if you have separate HDDs for your OSes, you can make an EFI parition on both, and choose equally in your boot menu in your BIOS.

I want to restore MSDOS/Windows MBR boot sectors? fdisk /fixmbr. I want to clone disk? Just dd it. With EFI boot I'd always have to take extra steps there. Not so with MBR.

Again, that would be cool if it always worked. I can't count the times when /fixmbr did not solve anything at all. And not sure what dd has to do with EFI.

Using command line tool for single command is always simpler than doing multiple steps like creating extra partitions, copying over files, etc. Single step vs multiple steps.

Seen simply like that in the number of steps you have to take *if we assume everything works*, yeah, I'll give you that. Doesn't make it simpler for users though.

Now the other way around! Suppose we want to create a bootable USB for booting a Linux live-CD.

MBR:
1) Download ISO
2) Download a tool that can put ISO's of distros to USB or use something else to make it bootable
3) Hit install and hope the tool works with the particular version of syslinux/isolinux/bootloader used by the distro (or copy ISO contents if you didn't use dedicated tool)
4) Profit!

EFI:
1) Download ISO
2) Open ISO by double-clicking
3) Copy contents to your USB stick (most are already FAT32!)
4) Profit!

Now I know what I would rather use.

In any case, I am done here. We're making no progress on this, nobody stops you from using MBR. For now at least, until it goes away.