Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EFI Sucks (2012)

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–76 of 76 posts

Re: EFI Sucks (2012)

#71

Post by jonnypickel »

majewsky wrote: post #67
jonnypickel wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to turn this into a support thread but this weekend I tried to install Arch on a new, UEFI-enabled laptop and I've been stymied so far because I can't get the laptop to recognize my Live USB. I've built it with Rufus, dd for Windows, and Easy2Boot all with the same result (no bootable device) even though it works on another machine. Could it be because I created the USB on a PC using UEFI?

Huh? I just `dd` the official image onto a USB drive and it works 100% of the time, with various UEFI-using machines. (Except for that one Gigabyte mainboard which I returned upon finding out that its v1 firmware will only boot Windows 8.1. Not even Windows 8.0. There was a firmware update that fixed the issue, but without a bootable OS, applying it is a chicken-and-egg problem.)

Well then, I guess my problem likely lies elsewhere. Thanks for the reply. :)

And that has to be the strangest "feature" I've ever heard of from a hardware firm. Was it maybe purpose-built for a bulk order of machines that were going to be pre-loaded with Win8?

Re: EFI Sucks (2012)

#72

Post by swiley »

zbentley wrote: post #61
abhishekjha wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't understand a lot of what you said. Any sources?

The Arch wiki in the sibling comment is a good resource for learning a lot. I'll try to (over)simplify the short version here: With the old BIOS-based boot process, the computer (the hardware/motherboard; not the operating system you ran on it) would, when it started up, look around for installed operating systems to boot. It wouldn't look too hard: on each hard disk, it would look in one (or, if you were lucky, four…

If it just did discovery that would be pretty annoying. Most firmware actually lets you select a file to boot manually, that's what I like.

Re: EFI Sucks (2012)

#73

Post by JdeBP »

arghwhat wrote: post #55
swiley wrote: post #40

The one thing I really love about EFI on non-macs is that you don't need a boot loader. You just compile your kernel with an EFI stub and whatever you want in the initrd and then select it with the firmware GUI. That's nice

The EFI stub is the bootloader, and is analogue to the bootloader needed on a BIOS system. You don't need a seperate bootloader, or a multi -bootloader on any system. They only exists as a convenience. People still use GRUB on EFI for exactly that reason.

You and swiley are conflating boot loaders with boot managers.

* http://jdebp.eu./FGA/bootstrap-programs.html

* http://jdebp.eu./FGA/efi-boot-process.html

Re: EFI Sucks (2012)

#74

Post by JdeBP »

ramenmeal wrote: post #17
craftyguy wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, right. I suppose it could also be argued that the kernel is also unnecessarily complex as well?

Eh its a little different. Your analogy would be more correct if we kept adding to the BIOS interface till it got large, rather than starting from scratch.

Actually, that is what happened in the years before EFI. The API for old style PC/AT and PC98 firmware is a patchwork mess of oftentimes-conflicting subsystems that grew over the years.

Re: EFI Sucks (2012)

#75

Post by pankajdoharey »

rotorblade wrote: post #29
rkangel wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FAT32 is a good choice IMO. It's the simplest of the "mainstream" filesystems.

Is it a good choice though? Isn't there a bunch of possible issues with FAT patents, in case someone wants to ship a product that boots, that could have been avoided by using something else? (I don't know, I just have some vague memory of some Tomtom/Microsoft conflict due to FAT) edit: user 'xxs' managed to type up the same issue before me (while I was typing mine).

Yes you are absolutely right about the tomtom fiasco and they did end up paying MS.

Re: EFI Sucks (2012)

#76

Post by pankajdoharey »

daurnimator wrote: post #30
rotorblade wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it a good choice though? Isn't there a bunch of possible issues with FAT patents, in case someone wants to ship a product that boots, that could have been avoided by using something else? (I don't know, I just have some vague memory of some Tomtom/Microsoft conflict due to FAT) edit: user 'xxs' managed to type up the same issue before me (while I was typing mine).

I think only exFAT has patent issues? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT#Portability_and_adoption

Both have.
Post reply on HN