111–120 of 184 posts
Hmm, I wonder what to do if you want to be able to boot the same system via both BIOS and UEFI.
I’m curious why that would be useful?
Hmm, I wonder what to do if you want to be able to boot the same system via both BIOS and UEFI.
So is this the first work Microsoft set Pottering to do? Kinda supports my personal conspiracy theory that Microsoft's aiming to make secure boot only possible with systemd-boot. Or Microsoft is trying to make dual booting easier without using the simplest solution of making a larger ESP the default.
I see no problems with secure boot from a freedom perspective as long as the owner of the computer can install their own trusted public keys. There might be industry players that would like to remove that possibility. But why Poettering's work would make that easier I fail to see.
Do you think once a real secure Linux boot is possible they will remove machine owner rights and you have to buy a signed Linux from Microsoft? Or from a Microsoft/IBM/? consortium super monopoly?
Meanwhile the apple firmware cannot read vFAT ESP. Apple wants ESP to be HFS.
Almost everything makes sense, imho. I have actually almost such a setup since some time. The only thing I don't understand: Why add something like `systemd-boot` to the setup? It's completely unnecessary! All you need is an UKI on the EFI partition. UEFI has a perfectly sufficient bootloader already. I never found out what additional advantages `systemd-boot` would offer. Maybe someone could clarify?
It gives you a UI to choose what to boot and edit the kernel bootline. You don't need it if your UEFI firmware makes it easy for you to do that, or if you have edk2-shell available, but those are not true of all systems.
There are many years since I no longer create partitions on any SSD or HDD, because I believe that this serves no useful purpose and it just wastes a part of the SSD/HDD. I format directly the raw unpartitioned SSD/HDD with a file system that uses 100% of the capacity, with no wasted sectors. At least on Linux and FreeBSD, there is no need of partitions. For booting the computers, I either boot them from Ethernet or…
I have taken this approach for secondary drives where I want to use the entire drive as a big filesystem for data. For the system disk I have always partitioned it though. I generally create at least /, /var, /home, and /usr. That way it's less likely that a runaway process can fill up the entire disk, at worst it might fill up /home or /var. And unless I'm really space-constrained, I'll leave some unpartitioned spac…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no UEFI on M1 macs. However boot protocol there is completely different and complicated.
Oh wow, that is a big change! Even though I know Microsoft influenced and pushed the UEFI standard, my first macbook was my first introduction to EFI booting (since I had used legacy BIOS on my PCs up until college), so I've always associated it with Apple hardware.
See https://github.com/AsahiLinux/docs/wiki/SW%3ABoot for example.
I'm a huge fan of UKI - it's part of the underlying 'magic' of ZFSBootMenu ( https://github.com/zbm-dev/zfsbootmenu/ ). We ship a single EFI file that is a full Linux kernel, a semi-custom initramfs and an embedded command line. With that, we can fully support root-on-ZFS because we don't have to re-implement a complex filesystem in a bootloader ... like GRUB. Because we're not trying to re-implement ZFS (or any othe…
So is this the first work Microsoft set Pottering to do? Kinda supports my personal conspiracy theory that Microsoft's aiming to make secure boot only possible with systemd-boot. Or Microsoft is trying to make dual booting easier without using the simplest solution of making a larger ESP the default.
So what's your "conspiracy" here? What is secure boot-only? Secure boot with systemd-boot has been possible for years. Just that the typical setup has not been very secure because the initrd and the kernel command line where already unsigned. I see no problems with secure boot from a freedom perspective as long as the owner of the computer can install their own trusted public keys. There might be industry players tha…
It was not, ironically because of Microsoft. Shim is by policy effectively only allowed to boot grub2. So systemd-boot can't be used OOTB on secure boot enabled systems, you'd have to enroll your own key.