Fedora 37 Will Not Deprecate Legacy BIOS Support

[calc]

It seems a lot of people in this comment thread thought Intel only made low end systems in prior years. Even good desktops back in 2008 could hold up to 48GB of RAM (eg i7-9xx). Not everyone is still trying to use a 10 year old low end AMD A4 / Intel Atom CPU that barely worked even when new.

As Jabberwocky noted due to Intel's CPU stagnation CPUs haven't really gotten that much faster in the past 10-15 years or so. A high end CPU from 10 years ago is still roughly as fast as a current gen lower end CPU.

[hamishmb]

10 years old hardware will behave horribly on current Linux anyway. It's utterly pointless.

This is just plain wrong. Linux runs great on my laptop from 2012 with a 3rd gen i7. Battery life could be better but that's old laptop CPUs, not Linux's fault.

[Waethorn]

Still more legacy GRUBbiness.

[horizonbrave]

I am so thankful Alex you are going to buy me a new computer which I cannot afford on my own, so I keep using the one I have, thank you for your kindness to me to help get this done.

There are a lot of us out here who cannot afford new computers, thank you for buying us all new ones.

You can use an other distro.
You can sell you old cluncky shitty computer and use the money to buy a modern one (even second one).
Fedora could you use resources for something greater than support cheap minded fucks like you

[pWe00Iri3e7Z9lHOX2Qx]

EDIT: besides, in practice it is more a test bed for features to include in RHEL than anything else, so I'd flag it as experimental and not use it for anything serious. My advice, stick to LTS distros for older hardware and real work. And in terms of planned obsolescence, I think what should really be respected is the right to repair, rather than anyone doing it for you for free, and all open source software respects that by default.

This is a ridiculous statement. Fedora is the supported Linux distro at the many billion dollar per quarter tech mega corp with over 100,000 employees where I work. It's the same at Facebook and other giant tech companies. The people using Linux at work tend to be in software development / DevOps /etc. These people generally do not want an ancient base layer from an LTS, even if they are heavily using containers. A lot of these companies are also running their infrastructure on RHEL or some binary compatible offering, so Fedora on the desktop for those employees that need / want Linux is also easier from a support / tooling / automation perspective.

[pWe00Iri3e7Z9lHOX2Qx]

You can use an other distro.
You can sell you old cluncky shitty computer and use the money to buy a modern one (even second one).
Fedora could you use resources for something greater than support cheap minded fucks like you

Gotta love the wonderful community here at Phoronix...

[moriel5]

The interesting thing, is that Intel has had UEFI on their own motherboards as early as the Core 2 era.
I own several Intel motherboards (an DH55HC with a fauly RTC chip that I need to find time t replace, a motherboard with the P58 chipset (I forget the model) that I need to diagnose it's boot failure, 2 boards with the H67 chipset (again, I forget them model), one of which has 4 dead DIMM slots, and a DG41WV all of which have UEFI).

[Mateus Felipe]

It's sad they stepped back on this decision. BIOS isn't even a thing today.

[sinepgib]

It's even more rare in your case winboy. Btw. how do you feel after realizing how broken windows, ntfs and win32 api are?

Honest question, how are those broken?

This is a ridiculous statement. Fedora is the supported Linux distro at the many billion dollar per quarter tech mega corp with over 100,000 employees where I work. It's the same at Facebook and other giant tech companies. The people using Linux at work tend to be in software development / DevOps /etc. These people generally do not want an ancient base layer from an LTS, even if they are heavily using containers. A lot of these companies are also running their infrastructure on RHEL or some binary compatible offering, so Fedora on the desktop for those employees that need / want Linux is also easier from a support / tooling / automation perspective.

RHEL is not Fedora tho. It moves at a much slower pace. I don't work at many billion dollars per quarter tech mega corps but I wouldn't recommend for them to use Fedora anyway. Even if they prefer to not go with LTS it moves way too fast, probably just use Ubuntu I guess :shrug:
If they want to move fast for the sake of moving fast they could use Arch/something Arch based as well. Which is what I do, BTW (TM).
Regarding support/tooling/automation: support and tooling is so much a moot point considering RHEL tends to use ancient software compared to Fedora that I don't think it even needs to be addressed. You would have fewer problems for that with an LTS that also uses ancient software. Automation isn't really that hard regardless of using RPM or APT, and much of the compatibility issues are already solved if you use systemd native tools.
Regardless, I'll take a wild guess that many billion dollars per quarter tech mega corps don't often let workstations become more than a few years old. So even then, Fedora dropping stuff for old hardware is irrelevant for them (and probably the reason Fedora doesn't want to invest in it, because these mega corps aren't interested in funding that support because they won't use it).

[Vistaus]

There are still pretty capable pre-UEFI hardware

Like, from 2000 or so? 'Cause Intel already implemented UEFI support on Core 2 Duo CPU's. So except for a few CPU's, most of at least Intel CPU's have had UEFI for many years now as Core 2 Duo was first available in 2006 (!). Which means that chances are slim that you will have a pre-UEFI system that Fedora 37 will run fine on, as those are extremely old by now.