Originally posted by RahulSundaram
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Fedora Developers Discussing Possibility Of Dropping Legacy BIOS Support
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by JustinTurdeau View Post
A lot of the confusion comes down to Michael's dishonest/clickbait titles. People just read that and then instantly click "comments" and start typing out yet another uninformed rant.
...but perhaps in the next year or following year we'll see them go forward with their plans for dropping legacy BIOS support...
Such proposal would never be about stop supporting older hardware that's just a misconception people are getting.
And it's quite evident by the response here that hw that is atleast 2010 and older is still quite happily being used and that hw does not support UEFI and no one is talking about taking that away anytime soon.
The first step ( The actual change proposal ) would simply be about replace grub2 with sd-boot for UEFI strictly on the x86 architecture which has UEFI available and enabled ( is not using legacy bios ) and see what issue are encountered, solve those then consider moving to different architectures and further integration if relevant etc. ( baby steps ) Next I would suggest looking at UEFI supported ARM systems ( but I personally would have to obtain such hardware before doing so ).
JBG
Cheers,
MikeLast edited by mroche; 30 June 2020, 07:51 PM.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by JustinTurdeau View Post
A lot of the confusion comes down to Michael's dishonest/clickbait titles. People just read that and then instantly click "comments" and start typing out yet another uninformed rant.
The process for a formal change is outlined in
Here is the list of accepted changes for this release
Each of them was proposed in the devel list, discussed and then accepted by a public vote by FESCo (the engineering committee in Fedora).
Comment
-
Originally posted by mroche View Post
Although I agree in a good amount of cases, this one I think the title is fine. I do take issue with this phrasing:
There are no plans. This is someone bringing up an idea to discuss. An important point of which is the following:
Although the discussion started with the question about BIOS support, it really evolved into how to best transition to SD-Boot from Grub2 and thoughts on that. I.e. if at install time UEFI is detected and on x86, use systemd-boot, otherwise grub. It wouldn't seem to affect active installations or anything of the ilk.
Cheers,
Mike
GRUB is a ham-fisted bootloader for UEFI booting. Systemd-boot is just plain better at it. It stands to reason that Red Hat would put more investment into one of their own projects rather than dig into something from the FSF, which has its own release cycle and agenda.
Ultimately, I'd like to see them quit using static swap partitions too, and switch to swapfiles by default, since they can be dynamically allocated for systems that still need them, thus not wasting extra space on systems that don't - the software should do this decision work for the user based on their workload.
It looks like they're adopting a zram thing instead. One question about that: when you have a low-RAM system with only, say, 4GB of RAM, they're allocating 2GB of that to compressed swap assuming you get a 2:1 compression, so only another 4GB of usable swap space, but you're only left with 2GB usable out of real physical RAM? So what happens if you still go over the total of 6GB (assuming your data CAN be compressed at 2:1 - which they can't guarantee)? You're just going to get an OOM condition? Seems like a silly idea to me for systems that really need to use swap. Can someone explain the reasoning behind this?Last edited by Giovanni Fabbro; 30 June 2020, 08:44 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View Post
Ultimately, I'd like to see them quit using static swap partitions too, and switch to swapfiles by default, since they can be dynamically allocated for systems that still need them, thus not wasting extra space on systems that don't - the software should do this decision work for the user based on their workload.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View Post
Oh wait. Original Phenom? Ya, that's pretty old. Phenom II Gigabyte boards had really shitty BIOS's too - no native UEFI booting, instead used some janky thing by Gigabyte to get 2TB drive support with only BIOS booting.
I might be thinking of FX processors. FX motherboards should all have been UEFI.
Comment
-
Originally posted by hakavlad View Post
Stop using the L-word, please: BIOS is not "legacy", it's just alternative way (one of many).
The last few machines with BIOS were released in 2012. My old broken laptop used BIOS, despite being made in 2012.
However, it's been 8 years already. This does not mean everyone has dropped BIOS though (but some call it legacy because it is in fact old and crusty (since 1980, only a 512-byte bootstrap)).
Fedora just likes to drop old things quick, the Apple way.
- Likes 2
Comment
Comment