3 ms·
1. They no longer need to package bios bootloaders 2. They no longer need to support bios booting in the forums - no asking "how do you boot this? Bios, EFI? H
by faho 4y ago
1. They no longer need to package bios bootloaders
2. They no longer need to support bios booting in the forums - no asking "how do you boot this? Bios, EFI? Have you tried the other?", no telling people "EFI is required for feature X"
3. They no longer need to maintain the bios boot documentation
4. They no longer need to maintain the bios path in the installer/boot media
5. They no longer need to test the bios paths (or hope they don't break and be ashamed if they don't)
6. This makes it easier to switch to a EFI-only default bootloader (instead of Grub 2, which can do both)
Is this massive? No, it's possible to keep maintaining BIOS support. But it's not just freeing space on the package mirrors either.
- adrian_b 4y agoI agree that restricting the boot method to EFI would reduce the testing time. Grub 2 is complex to configure, but there are other bootloaders that are much easier to configure, e.g. syslinux. Restricting the boot method to EFI does not reduce the need for documentation in any way. The user must still be instructed to enter the BIOS setup and verify whether their computer is not configured to boot in legacy mode, which would prevent booting. Also the user must be instructed to enter the BIOS setup even if the EFI mode is used, because the installation media might not boot anyway, because a wrong boot order is configured for EFI booting, and it must be changed. The most complex part of the installation is not the booting, but identifying the device where Fedora should be installed, which might be needed to be reformatted and repartitioned. So a lot of documentation is needed in any case, for novice users. Removing the booting in legacy mode increases the chances that the installation media will not boot without the user having to modify the BIOS setup, so it increases the chances of the user having to search support in the forums.
- faho 4y ago>Grub 2 is complex to configure, but there are other bootloaders that are much easier to configure, e.g. syslinux. ~~Yes but syslinux is bios-only. So if you have to support EFI too (and you do because there's EFI-only hardware), you now either need to support syslinux and an EFI bootloader, or a bootloader that supports both like Grub 2.~~ Edit: The article seems to suggest that syslinux can be removed if bios boot is no longer supported. I read that as it being bios-only, but it seems to support EFI? >Restricting the boot method to EFI does not reduce the need for documentation in any way. You still need documentation, yes. But you no longer need any documentation for booting with BIOS. You no longer need to say "X is only supported in EFI, if you boot via BIOS you need to do Y" or anything like that, and keep those parts updated. The part of the docs that says "To boot EFI, do X. To boot BIOS, do Y" can be cut down to "To boot Fedora, ensure X". That is a reduction in the amount of documentation.
- usrn 4y agoYou arguably don't need a bootloader at all with EFI. You could just use the efistub.
- adrian_b 4y agoYes, it is easy to make a bootable device that can use either syslinux to boot when legacy BIOS is used or efistub to boot when EFI booting is used, eventually loading the same kernel. No other bootloader is needed.
- imtringued 4y agoOr systemd-boot. I will admit I am using Grub2 on my current Linux installation but I never liked grub. I think grub sucks.