grub-pc versus grub-efi-amd64

[Volker Wysk]

Am Dienstag, den 01.09.2020, 17:55 +0200 schrieb 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.

It occured to me, too, that UEFI under Linux is a mess. Now, this
explains it...


Cheers,
Volker
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20200902/cff23113/attachment.sig>