5 ms·

There sure was a lot of "people use legacy for specific reasons" in there, but they don't mention what those reasons might be -- except for Linux support. Kind

There sure was a lot of "people use legacy for specific reasons" in there, but they don't mention what those reasons might be -- except for Linux support. Kinda hard to fix the "last mile" when you don't know anything about the last mile.

volume 9y ago
"people use legacy for specific reasons" was for people like me. I have a note in our company wiki to disable UEFI because it broke our PXE deployments. Now from this PDF I am forced to harness the power of Google to understand why.
- volume 9y ago
  Ah ha - I had been configuring syslinux to serve out pxelinux.0 only and not pxelinux.efi. Could they have just thrown that one liner in to one of the slides? http://www.syslinux.org/wiki/index.php?title=PXELINUX#UEFI http://www.syslinux.org/wiki/index.php?title=PXELINUX#UEFI edit: on 2nd thought I need to try this out to verify it end to end. Maybe there some other step. Or maybe this is yet another reason to embrace AWS. I get to declutter the UEFI/BIOS topic out of my mind.
eikenberry 9y ago
I haven't switched yet because I keep forgetting to create an ESP partition when I upgrade.
josteink 9y ago
> they don't mention what those reasons might be -- except for Linux support. I UEFI boot all my Linux systems. What FUD are you on about?
- thinkloop 9y ago
  Pls HN, don't downvote straightforward questions
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- e12e 9y ago
  Actually, with all the industry support for Linux, I'd be more concerned with minix (ironically, as Intel me runs minix), free/net/openbsd, haiku, new experimental oses (like new stuff written in rust), new hypervisors (like xen, but new projects). Of course, as long as "Linux support" means "load signed extensible, Turing-complete bootloader that can do anything" - people running another OS can continue to that, with no help from the hw in securing their fde encryption keys...
- cjensen 9y ago
  If you Read The Fine Article, it says that people disable UEFI for Linux. And, like you, they point out that secure boot can be disabled instead. I pointed out that they list zero additional reasons people give for disabling UEFI, so it is hard to evaluate how to fix the "last mile" for those cases. Calling that FUD when it is literally in the article is unkind at best. I shouldn't have to reiterate stuff already said in the article in order to avoid hurting the feelings of Linux users who haven't.
  - josteink 9y ago
    > And, like you, they point out that secure boot can be disabled instead. Why would I do that? All Linux distros I use works fine with Secure Boot.
dfox 9y ago
There are end users and then there are PC/motherboard manufacturers who usually large amount of DOS based tools (very often composed from layers upon layers of horrible hacks) for testing and/or initial setup.

volume 9y ago

"people use legacy for specific reasons" was for people like me. I have a note in our company wiki to disable UEFI because it broke our PXE deployments. Now from this PDF I am forced to harness the power of Google to understand why.

volume 9y ago
Ah ha - I had been configuring syslinux to serve out pxelinux.0 only and not pxelinux.efi. Could they have just thrown that one liner in to one of the slides? http://www.syslinux.org/wiki/index.php?title=PXELINUX#UEFI http://www.syslinux.org/wiki/index.php?title=PXELINUX#UEFI edit: on 2nd thought I need to try this out to verify it end to end. Maybe there some other step. Or maybe this is yet another reason to embrace AWS. I get to declutter the UEFI/BIOS topic out of my mind.

eikenberry 9y ago

I haven't switched yet because I keep forgetting to create an ESP partition when I upgrade.

josteink 9y ago

> they don't mention what those reasons might be -- except for Linux support. I UEFI boot all my Linux systems. What FUD are you on about?

thinkloop 9y ago
Pls HN, don't downvote straightforward questions
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
e12e 9y ago
Actually, with all the industry support for Linux, I'd be more concerned with minix (ironically, as Intel me runs minix), free/net/openbsd, haiku, new experimental oses (like new stuff written in rust), new hypervisors (like xen, but new projects). Of course, as long as "Linux support" means "load signed extensible, Turing-complete bootloader that can do anything" - people running another OS can continue to that, with no help from the hw in securing their fde encryption keys...
cjensen 9y ago
If you Read The Fine Article, it says that people disable UEFI for Linux. And, like you, they point out that secure boot can be disabled instead. I pointed out that they list zero additional reasons people give for disabling UEFI, so it is hard to evaluate how to fix the "last mile" for those cases. Calling that FUD when it is literally in the article is unkind at best. I shouldn't have to reiterate stuff already said in the article in order to avoid hurting the feelings of Linux users who haven't.
- josteink 9y ago
  > And, like you, they point out that secure boot can be disabled instead. Why would I do that? All Linux distros I use works fine with Secure Boot.

dfox 9y ago

There are end users and then there are PC/motherboard manufacturers who usually large amount of DOS based tools (very often composed from layers upon layers of horrible hacks) for testing and/or initial setup.