So I am looking to upgrade and now motherboards have UEFI. It seems UEFI is a firmware operating system to load the operating system. Sure there are advances but they seemed to went and unsurprisingly there are already bugs reported in UEFI that of course is expected due to how many lines of code UEFI has.
So what is it good for? Is legacy mode still the way to go, or libreboot (that raises support issues)?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
techrights.org
twitter.com
I still use legacy when I can as uefi seems to just make things harder.
It's a complete clusterfuck, made by both Microsoft and Intel, the masters of clusterfuck. Avoid.
BIOS is nicer and simpler. And I never came close to maxing out the limits for disk partitions or disk size. Anyway they could have just upgraded the BIOS limits.
The only good think I can think of about it is it has an integrated bootloader, meaning GRUB is almost useless. But having my boot partition in vfat is fucking retarded and it's been a headache to deal with all its clusterfucked configured for the pleasure of normies.
Forcing motherboard manufacturers to implement something new and at least 32-bit instead of piling shit upon shit upon shit for 30 years to save a cent per unit.
The UEFI is now around 4 megabytes and its entire job is to initialize the hardware and pass it off the OS kernel. Meaning UEFI is now many times more complex then CP/M (as software) brining with it far more bugs and exploits. Didn't Intel hear of Keep It Simple, Stupid?
UEFI alone doesn't fix the problems with x86 architecture as a whole. It just needs to be killed at this point. Watch this video to see how far deep the problems are:
youtube.com
Pretty much the whole design needs to be scrapped and start over from scratch.
making gnu distributions non installable
Phew, I'm still safe. I can make my new drive MBR them. I though the limitation was 1TB
Please note. This man is a Freetard, no, not a FOSS enthusiast, but a freetard, the difference is Freetards would rather post links to spread blatant disinformation and rally against new technologies he knows absolutely nothing about.
Secure Boot and UEFI are two separate technologies, the only crimes UEFI committed was giving developers like Microsoft the ability to make SecureBoot happen
UEFI is the result of streamlining the boot process of x86_64 PCs. A big plus is more comprehensive ACPI configurations for OS' to use, allowing better OS hardware support between different platforms. It also contains rudimentary tools for loading simple PE binaries to simplify the booting process and an interactive shell for basic drive operations.
On the surface it looks no different from the old BIOS (although some manufactures like putting flashy bitmap graphics but this is rare)
Retards hate it because its different and thus triggers their autism
Making the book process more bloated, the average UEFI file size is now larger then the size of the Amiga kickstart and Amiga OS 3.1 combined, meaning it is the size of a operating system. So the motherboard is booting a OS kernel just to boot the OS kernel you really want. There was a joke some years ago that Emacs will eventually ported to UEFI (the joke being UEFI is already a full OS kernel).
Have never had in issues with UEFI in practice loading a variety of operating systems.
The only think one might be worried about is expanded attack surface from outsiders as well as Intel/Microsoft.
I bet you say shit like this unironically while still using GRUB and Ubuntu
IIRC BIOS can boot off GPT disks. It's Wangblows that refuses to do so unless you're on UEFI, though.
Oh please, you know very well that secure boot is not the only problem with UEFI. The potential to brick your motherboard from improper updates is another major issue.
Please note. This man is a Micro$oft shill. Not an user, but a shill, the difference is Micro$oft shills would rather promote a service that forces Linux and BSD developers to bow down to Microsoft and have them sign their operating system in order for them to work on UEFI-enabled systems.
UEFI is cancer. Microsoft shills aim to promote a system where Linux is not allowed to operate without Microsoft's explicit, signed permission.
Pretty sure on any x64 system UEFI is x64 code. I thought there was only a little while that x32 UEFI code was out in the wild.
You're confusing UEFI and Secureboot. Secureboot is cancer, but UEFI did nothing wrong.
Secureboot did nothing wrong. If you want to properly secure a Linux box, it and trustedgrub are necessities.
You don't need any of that overcomplicated shit. An old system from 10-20 years ago with just BIOS, and encryption fixed disk that you boot from removable device (with LILO and kernel) is all that's needed.
being a huge pain in the ass
you can compile a kernel as an efi stub though, so no bootloader- straight into Linux
Why not just?
# echo "GRUB_ENABLE_CRYPTODISK=y" >> /etc/default/grub
grub shat its pants on a new machine I got, it couldn't even find the NVMe disk so I couldn't use it :'(
That was a while ago now, so I should check to see if it's been updated with support for this stupid over-complicated hardware
Ok, I'll bite. What about HVM virtualization, anons? Can't get a full hardware passthrough without EFI. It took me almost a year to git good at UEFI. The main benefit to me is not longer having to fuck with bootloaders.
UEFI is Microsoft and Intel's attempt at making BIOSes completely unusable instead of vaguely usable.
It is a giant clusterfuck that doesn't do the thing it's supposed to.
It is actually a good idea, with what the signed operating systems and all, it's just used incorrectly since windows OS' are the only ones that are 'legal'.
UEFI *is* SecureBoot. It's literally called UEFI SecureBoot.