4 ms·

I much prefer desktops and don't even own a laptop at the moment, but what's with the fixation on UEFI? I'm not well versed in the technical differences between

by smabie 6y ago

I much prefer desktops and don't even own a laptop at the moment, but what's with the fixation on UEFI? I'm not well versed in the technical differences between BIOS and UEFI, but I don't think it really matters? All these people like Richard Stallman and this guy make their lives harder as a method of virtue signaling. I'm convinced they get off on the masochism of making their life hard for the sake of "freedom." Meanwhile, the rest of us just want to get work done: my Arch Linux desktop that boots with UEFI is functionally identical to one that boots with BIOS. So.. really, who cares?

0df8dkdf 6y ago
https://www.howtogeek.com/56958/HTG-EXPLAINS-HOW-UEFI-WILL-REPLACE-THE-BIOS/ https://www.howtogeek.com/56958/HTG-EXPLAINS-HOW-UEFI-WILL-R... Seems like UEFI make sense, as it is agreed upon by all large vendors like Intel, Apple, MS.
aksss 6y ago
UEFI has more capabilities than BIOS, and is the go-forward standard. You may see functional parity on your workstation simply because you aren’t using any of the UEFI features. UEFI can do what BIOS did, but BIOS can’t do what UEFI does (e.g. TPM chip, secure boot, and many other cool things).
mrkeen 6y ago
> So.. really, who cares? Consider yourself lucky if you don't need to care. It's a mechanism to lock down a computer to only run "trusted" OSes. Who gets to decide which OSes are trusted? Does Arch have lobbyists? It's just one falling domino in a series of falling dominos, where maybe one day you don't get to run Arch anymore. This stuff really can go either way. People were allowed to record TV using VCRs in the 90s. Ripping CD Audio onto hard disks? Dunno. Copying DVDs & Blu-ray onto hard disks? Definitely not. What about running software on a phone? Better "jailbreak" it. > my Arch Linux desktop that boots with UEFI is functionally identical to one that boots with BIOS Stallman agrees with you that you don't get anything from UEFI: "This is not a security feature. This is abuse of the users. I think it ought to be illegal." He also made the claim, "Microsoft demands that ARM computers sold for Windows 8 be set up so that the user cannot change the keys; in other words, turn it into restricted boot." Crazy? > For logo-certified Windows RT 8.1 and Windows RT PCs, Secure Boot is required to be configured so that it cannot be disabled. > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/manufacture/desktop/disabling-secure-boot https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/manufactur... edit: Just thought of three more battles currently going on: * Oculus headsets now require Facebook logins. * youtube-dl just got blocked on GitHub * Iranians and GitLab
- p_l 6y ago
  If they wanted to lock it down they could have just used coreboot and didn't build a big honking framework deliberately designed to allow running different systems that have no pre-existing knowledge about the machine. Just like many other closed platforms of yore, or how in practice Macs of today work (their UEFI is, plainly, not to spec - a lot of hackintosh work is figuring out "what Apple did wrong this time")
hyperdimension 6y ago
You can accuse RMS for many things, but he definitively does not 'virtue signal.' He at least (from all public appearances anyway) practices what he preaches.
- p_l 6y ago
  A bit of a problem however is that what's fine for RMS, is not necessarily fine for anyone else. Including approaching the booting of a computer as if it was still KA-10 and you were using RIM10B bootstrap loader.
TheGrim-888 6y ago
I find it really gross this trend nowadays to look down upon or make fun of people that are interested in preserving their freedom. If I assume you're from the US, what's supposed to be the "land of the free, home of the brave", and yet you're mocking somebody for wanting to be free in this particular aspect of their life.

by smabie 6y ago

0df8dkdf 6y ago

https://www.howtogeek.com/56958/HTG-EXPLAINS-HOW-UEFI-WILL-REPLACE-THE-BIOS/ https://www.howtogeek.com/56958/HTG-EXPLAINS-HOW-UEFI-WILL-R... Seems like UEFI make sense, as it is agreed upon by all large vendors like Intel, Apple, MS.

aksss 6y ago

UEFI has more capabilities than BIOS, and is the go-forward standard. You may see functional parity on your workstation simply because you aren’t using any of the UEFI features. UEFI can do what BIOS did, but BIOS can’t do what UEFI does (e.g. TPM chip, secure boot, and many other cool things).

mrkeen 6y ago

> So.. really, who cares? Consider yourself lucky if you don't need to care. It's a mechanism to lock down a computer to only run "trusted" OSes. Who gets to decide which OSes are trusted? Does Arch have lobbyists? It's just one falling domino in a series of falling dominos, where maybe one day you don't get to run Arch anymore. This stuff really can go either way. People were allowed to record TV using VCRs in the 90s. Ripping CD Audio onto hard disks? Dunno. Copying DVDs & Blu-ray onto hard disks? Definitely not. What about running software on a phone? Better "jailbreak" it. > my Arch Linux desktop that boots with UEFI is functionally identical to one that boots with BIOS Stallman agrees with you that you don't get anything from UEFI: "This is not a security feature. This is abuse of the users. I think it ought to be illegal." He also made the claim, "Microsoft demands that ARM computers sold for Windows 8 be set up so that the user cannot change the keys; in other words, turn it into restricted boot." Crazy? > For logo-certified Windows RT 8.1 and Windows RT PCs, Secure Boot is required to be configured so that it cannot be disabled. > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/manufacture/desktop/disabling-secure-boot https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/manufactur... edit: Just thought of three more battles currently going on: * Oculus headsets now require Facebook logins. * youtube-dl just got blocked on GitHub * Iranians and GitLab

p_l 6y ago
If they wanted to lock it down they could have just used coreboot and didn't build a big honking framework deliberately designed to allow running different systems that have no pre-existing knowledge about the machine. Just like many other closed platforms of yore, or how in practice Macs of today work (their UEFI is, plainly, not to spec - a lot of hackintosh work is figuring out "what Apple did wrong this time")

hyperdimension 6y ago

You can accuse RMS for many things, but he definitively does not 'virtue signal.' He at least (from all public appearances anyway) practices what he preaches.

p_l 6y ago
A bit of a problem however is that what's fine for RMS, is not necessarily fine for anyone else. Including approaching the booting of a computer as if it was still KA-10 and you were using RIM10B bootstrap loader.

TheGrim-888 6y ago

I find it really gross this trend nowadays to look down upon or make fun of people that are interested in preserving their freedom. If I assume you're from the US, what's supposed to be the "land of the free, home of the brave", and yet you're mocking somebody for wanting to be free in this particular aspect of their life.