4 ms·
I dunno that it’s really all that different. EFI is sort of what DOS would likely have become if MS had kept with it. It uses PE format, has back slash paths, h
by BirAdam 3y ago
I dunno that it’s really all that different. EFI is sort of what DOS would likely have become if MS had kept with it. It uses PE format, has back slash paths, has the same .3 extensions, and so on. There are certainly many similarities.
- ssl-3 3y agoWhat's different is that using loadlin on MS-DOS was "lol, fuckin' newb" material (even though it was exquisitely functional and ridiculously easy to use), while the potentially very similar EFI system is a heralded as a champion. I guess I am trying to express my annoyance with the Linux crowd's fickle nature over the years.
- Latty 3y agoI'm not sure that's on the Linux crowd: UEFI is what the hardware ships with, they don't really have much of a choice.
- ssl-3 3y agoMy own (perhaps old) hardware gives me a choice of old-school BIOS, or more-modern UEFI. (But perhaps amusingly-counter to my original suggestion, old-ass archaic emulated BIOS seems to still be preferred in some spaces in the VM-using crowd -- at least where things like libvirt are involved. In those spaces, BIOS usually works fine and it generally boots faster than *EFI.)