What the fuck is UEFI really?

What the fuck is UEFI really?

Can it be cleaned up?

Does Linux use Windows's UEFI shit or no?

a unified extensible firmware interface

Oy Vey goyim, I see you're using BIOS without a mouse.
Let me just add mouse support in BIOS for you.
Of course you can no longer install Linux now but that wasn't kosher anyways use nice Windows instead, made in Israel.

>repeating words that mean nothing
But what is it REALLY?

Its a GUI for the bios.
Once pushed as the next get DRM only to fall through the floor from vulnerabilities.

I still use legacy boot without issues.

so I shouldn't use eufi? I'm already using eufi.

It was meant to replace BIOS.
BIOS means Basic I/O System.
Now with UEFI we have Botnet I/O System.

Its basically proprietary shit pushed from Microsoft and its partners for more control over the hardware.
The benefits are debatable there are many videos on the topic.

>pushed from Microsoft and its partners
wasn't apple the first one to go full efi on everything?

you mean legacy "emulation", right?

I cant really tell you sine I dont know but I remember the big uproar when Microsoft announced to force UEFI on everything from a certain date.

since*

No, I mean I installed my OS the normal way: copied a regular ISO to a USB, put the USB into the computer, booted and installed. I don't use GPT because I don't need it.

that's because you'll never get an uproar from apple customers, they always party hard no matter what apple changes. i've seen core2duo macs on efi, but my 2500k build (that i'll probably keep using until boards come with coreboot instead of uefi) is still using bios.

BIOS here, works completely fine. Even stuff like binding vfio to a gpu and passing it through to a windows 10 client, no problems at all. UEFI seems like a meme to me.

Microsoft wanted to lock the OS to the motherboard.

So if you buy a Windows laptop you wouldn't be able to install Linux on it.
That is what the uproar was all about.

AFAIK you can still install Linux on any Macbook.

>So if you buy a Windows laptop you wouldn't be able to install Linux on it.
So like Google smart phones? But Google is not evil.

something that nobody needed and nobody asked for and still has no serious benefits.

makes installing things 2x more difficult without apparent reason

hardware manufacturers are slowly switching to UEFI as a standard and no longer supporting legacy boot. (see Surfaces, new Macbooks, etc)

all of this culminating to... It's shit. It serves no purpose, especially not for the consumer. But it *WILL* become the new standard, whether we like it or not.

Micro$oft knows best, as always.

------------------------

just to elaborate on the idiocy that is UEFI:

"why do I need a separate boot partition explicitly formatted as fat32? I didn't need this before"

"why do I need some special boot flag for this? I never needed that."

"oh, so grub needs to be in /boot/efi/EFI now? why not just /boot? why does this need to be so complicated?"

"oh so you don't actually mount the boot drive to /boot, you mount it to /boot/efi? So you actually need files in your root partition on /boot? who makes this shit up?"

>extremely large codebase
>nothing personal, just a frontend

Thats the way it was promoted to the end user what the fuck was I supposed to say?

>Google is not evil
Looks like you are new here onii-chan

I much prefer this scheme to the fucking retarded scheme of MBR. Being able to chainload EFI binaries trivially has made my hackintosh/windows/Linux install so much easier to manage. As well, I don't have. to worry about every fucking windows update overwriting my bootloader setup.

Also, GPT is amazing compared to MS-DOS partition tables.

UEFI does not mandate secure boot support.

Microsoft wanted to lock the RT devices to the mobo without the ability to disable secure boot. Secure boot on desktops/laptops running standard windows can be disabled.

The license is embedded in the UEFI since OEM Activation 3.0 in Windows 8. Earlier OA versions used the same key in every mobo used by a manufacturer, since Win8 every mobo has a unique windows serial embedded (if the computer shipped with a windows license).

>muh old shit is better
>GPT is different so it's bad
>EFI is different so it's bad
are you going to go on about the virtues of separate water fountains next?

Yeah, Fuck linux, those weirdos will never learn. Don't be an oslet. Use Windows, Holy shit

> windows overwriting MBR

that's microsoft being retardedl, it has nothing to do with MBR.

> hackintosh/windows/Linux

no need to comment.

"If its not broke don't fix it"

UEFI gives no benefits, but adds complexity. It does not need to exist.

> separate water fountains

What the fuck are you on about? If you're going to straw man at least make it topical.

>google is not evil.
Pedofiles and terrorists have higher morals than anyone working for google.

you're being nostalgic. the pre-boot environment support makes it easier for manufacturers to put in diagnostics and more robust video/mouse/keyboard/network device support in the preboot environment, and the modular nature of EFI applications means it's easier to have multiple bootloaders on the same drive on the same system and not have them shit all over each other. this is in addition to GPT support for booting on drives larger than 2TB.

> manufacturers to put in diagnostics and more robust video/mouse/keyboard/network device support

I would argue this isn't something that should BE in the pre-boot environment, but that's another topic.

> easier to have multiple bootloaders on the same drive

This shouldn't need to be a thing. A single boot loader to detect all OSs installed is simpler and more efficient.

> GPT support for booting on drives larger than 2TB

This is the only real argument I can support for UEFI. I guess my complaints aren't the fact it exists, rather it could have been implemented a LOT better.

A unified extensible firmware interface

>a unified
an unified

its not microsoft being retarded. If their MBR code has a sec vuln or bug they need to overwrite it with a new one. They can't avoid writing their bootloader.

> They can't avoid writing their bootloader.

You mean they *could*, but they choose not to. They *could* have their code support 3rd party boot loaders, but they don't.

It's replacement for BIOS having more features as standard and easier to get new once.

>This shouldn't need to be a thing. A single boot loader to detect all OSs installed is simpler and more efficient.
Explain yourself.

i.e grub w/ os-prober, finds linux/bsd/win/hackintosh/random-shitty-os and allows boot to any of them without problems.

Not saying that grub is great or should be the end-all replacement, just the idea.

There's other advantages too. UEFI abstracts the initial boot environment support so it's easier to make a bootloader that works without specific knowledge of the platform and firmware. Option ROMs from expandable devices are are abstracted from the firmware into the UEFI driver model instead, meaning they are more compatible. The system partition in UEFI allows the system OEM, platform designers, and different third party OSes can all add capabilities to the preboot environment before the OS is fully initialized, and all without conflicting with each other.

BIOS is a years old kludge that we've had to deal with and the compatibility support module in UEFI allows us to use legacy software that supports it. But the overall approach of UEFI is way healthier.

>This shouldn't need to be a thing. A single boot loader to detect all OSs installed is simpler and more efficient.
Until one updates theirs through their OS update system and it tramples on anything else because they didn't consider dependencies/config in the other. Letting multiple bootloader apps coexist by design is wayyy better than trying to hope everyone holds hands and sings kumbaya.

>better than trying to hope everyone holds hands and sings kumbaya.

which is true, but if we're talking about a utopian ideals, that would be the utopian ideal.

We live in a society of world of compromises... We have speed limit signs in certain states of the US because they set the limit in the law as "prudent for the conditions" and then people drove too fast and crashed, and then they put a maximum speed limit that was too low for many drivers, but safe generally for everyone under normal conditions.

Hoping that everyone can get along is fruitless. The best we can hope for is to find a way where everyone can have their own little proverbial home and garden and tend to their own shit without interference.

so how is this better than EUFI boot loader for all the OS you have that will load exactly what is written on it and is completely isolated from others?

because you wouldn't need UEFI.

I have a question since in the past I had this problem.

I wanted to dual boot some shit. Just because, using GPT and all. Some distros support that without having to do much at all. However, I recall W10 giving me trouble because if I recall correctly just once it decided that I should probably skip GRUB and dual booting and overwrite that shit so I could only boot into W10. Or if it doesn't overwrite anything at least that's what I could do only.

Does that still happen frequently? Or maybe is there a file inside that EFI partition that could be backed up in case anything happens?

The hardware bootloader

You mean secure boot not EFI retard.

woah makes me think

>>a unified
>an unified
a unified

stop misgendering unified you insensitive assholes

Das Unified

>Does that still happen frequently?
Microsoft doesn't want people to dualboot, so you can expect it to always overwrite GRUB on install. If you want both Windows and another OS on the same system, just install windows first.

Or just use separate EFI partitions for all operating systems.

B..but I don't even work on ads

>be windows man
>decide want to make linus
>cool internet kids tell me arch is 31337
>follow weekee
>no work
>follow weekee again
>no work
>troubleshooting install on tiny phone
>want to commit mass origami
>decide to try fedora instead
>it work first time
>"ok"
>be me month later
>fedora shit
>am now unix master so try arch
>settle with some arch guide on imgur
>wise poly-demi-sages on arch board tell me bad
>"every hardwarez different"
>"fuck u" -- me
>follow guide
>fork that shows MBR and UEFI differences
>0w0 what have i become
>have to inane shit
>it work tho
tl;dr Fuck UEFI you robbed me of the privledge (*tips*) of being able to say my first distro was arch. No one in my hacker circle takes me seriously because their first distros were all either Void, Gentoo, or SourceGay.
>"my first was fedora" -- me
>"m'lady" -- hacker guy
>"n-no" -- me

if anyone tells you their first distro was a manual install they're full of shit

Yeah, my first distro used was RHEL, then Vector Linux (because I had a piece of shit ancient Thinkpad that shipped with Windows 98 in the year 2004), then Ubuntu because it was easy as hell. Nobody goes with a manual install the first time.

My first distro wasn't too manual, but it was Debian back in 2004 and that shit was painful.

>I would argue this isn't something that should BE in the pre-boot environment, but that's another topic.
why, you could get firmware updates without having to install the os first

>
>>>a unified
>>an unified
>a unified
La unified

>>>>a unified
>>>an unified
>>a unified
>La unified
Der unified

How does it feel being an empty husk

unified extensible firmware interface.
instead of BIOS/MBR abortion (4 partitions :^), bootloader in a specific sector, other shit), it replaces that with something better - gpt and a singular efi boot partition. the partition can be anywhere and any size. can also have multiple executables, effectively rendering boot managers obsolete. in fact, the linux kernel could be an executable, therefore not even needing a bootloader.
it doesnt mandate any gui in fact

UEFI, Only good thing about it is that it allows you to use 2TB+ drives as a boot/system drive. That's it. Only useful thing. With ssd's being all the rage these days you ain't nothing to worry about if you don't got a UEFI bios. Now when it comes to 2nd data drive it don't matter, you can stuff a 12TB (yes 12TB) drive in standard mobo, even a real old 1.5 Sata one provided you set the jumper to tell the drive to limit bus speed, and it'll work fine. 4K sector drives, long as they are 512E (WD use jumper or use seagate smart align, no jumper required) are fully b.c with all os back to Server 2K3 SP1. So in short, long as OS supports GPT, your fine, can use all 12TB drive as a single volume, even on real old 1.5 sata mobo.

Another thing, DAZ Windows Loader (Windows 7 favorite tool) WILL not work with UEFI enabled, you must enable old syle "legacy" bios mode first, then install Windows 7 and finally DAZ loader will work.

>not using a kms emulator
nice additional layer of botnet

got a new computer with an new asus motherboard with a shitty new bios. It has trouble recognizing linux as a bootable drive. so im stuck with win10 for now.

EFISTUB

>so im stuck with win10 for now.
call the UN human rights council

eufi is bios 2.0 but with a name for fags that want to feel special and different.

are you retarded? uefi does not prevent the use of linux.

It does if your UEFI doesn't have the signature and Secure Boot is enabled.
One option is disabling Secure Boot or UEFI entirely. The other option is to look on internet and add the signature if there is one available for that release image.

this is not a valid reply.
uefi =/= secure boot.
bios prevents linux from booting if you set vcore to 0V.
uefi and bios will render your computer inoperable if you disable usb and ps/2 and serial inputs.

UEFI dev here

>What the fuck is UEFI really?
A clusterfuck

>Can it be cleaned up?
Only by going back in time and nuking Intel headquarters. Or India for that matter.

Na, it's clearly "a" in this case. Unified doesn't start with a vowel sound.