grub-pc versus grub-efi-amd64

[Liam Proven]

On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 at 15:02, Volker Wysk <post at volker-wysk.de> wrote:

> Hehe. Nice flowchart. It says about the same as "If it ain't broken,
> don't fix it."


:-D Yes, exactly!

> In the moment, I'm at "The damn thing does work (right
> now), but it looks broken."
>
> I guess I'll keep my hands off it and file a bug report.

I endorse this plan! :-)

$DAYJOB is a Linux vendor. $DAYJOB-3 was a different Linux vendor. I
started a big argument there and one of the sub-threads was that UEFI
is a horrible mess, and the way that Linux supports it is mostly
really rather nasty. A paranoid sub-sub-thread was that I suspect that
one of the _reasons_ that UEFI does not play nice with Linux is that
Microsoft was involved in drafting the UEFI standard, and despite all
its marketing BS about "MICROS~1 <3 Linux" and all that nonsense, MS
is in fact deeply opposed and hostile to Linux and is merely
attempting its classic "embrace and extend" manoeuvre. It is actively
in Microsoft's favour that it is harder to install Linux on newer
computers, and harder still to make them dual-boot well.

This is _also_ why MS' ARM computers, e.g. the MS Surface (as opposed
to the x86-based Surface Pro), and the xBox series, have locked-down
firmware and do not let the user install different OSes.

-- 
Liam Proven – Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk – gMail/gTalk/gHangouts: lproven at gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/LinkedIn/Flickr: lproven – Skype: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 – ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053