What's the point of UEFI?

what's the point of UEFI?
the only thing BIOS systems should do is load the OS, and they're already good at this

name a good thing UEFI has done aside from giving us freaky ass firmware rootkits

Other urls found in this thread:

wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Sakaki's_EFI_Install_Guide/Configuring_Secure_Boot
amazon.com/Lightweight-11-6-inch-Quad-Core-Microsoft-Subscription/dp/B01LT692RK/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1514055654&sr=8-3&keywords=asus gold
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

The only thing that comes to my mind is the support for fuckhueg HDD which sadly BIOS doesn't have because they moved to UEFI.

it already existed for itanium basically
they wanted a replacement for the traditional bios because they wanted secure boot and portable firmware-level rootkit implants

>the support for fuckhueg HDD
pretty much this. I can't really think of any other good reason for UEFI.

>secure boot

This, aka making it impossible to put Linux on Windows hardware.

But they couldn't even get that part right (thank God).

Should I go back to mbr?

You should only be using UEFI if you absolutely have to.

I moved from mbr to gpt about two years ago cuz reasons.
But I'm not attached to it nor have a hdd bigger than 1th.

>the only thing BIOS systems should do is load the OS
BIOS also provides basic drivers for the motherboard's storage, input, and graphics. The bootloader relies on these to bootstrap itself. You can't use your SATA driver to load the SATA driver from disk.

UEFI has much better graphics drivers that support 16:9, resolutions higher than 1024x768, and EDID.

No, UEFI is technically superior. Only autists still use BIOS, because they can't handle change.

but the graphics drivers are irrelevant after the sata drivers. better graphics in something that should only load something to get you to your operating system is stupid.

>graphics drivers that support 16:9, resolutions higher than 1024x768
Fake news.
You can have both of these things on BIOS, obviously.

Unless you're talking about having this on the F12 menu or whatever, in which case, WHY THE FUCK DO YOU NEED THAT?

Name some things that actually make UEFI superior.

More NSA backdoors to protect you from baddies

GPT

EFISTUB

why not?

>Unless you're talking about having this on the F12 menu or whatever
How about the GRUB menu? If it had a dependency on the OS graphics driver it would be less reliable.

If you boot off a CD from a couple years ago (like CentOS 7) on brand new hardware, the on-disk graphics drivers might not support the GPU, but the BIOS certainly will because it shipped with the hardware.

If your OS installation is screwed up and boot fails, you need to see GRUB and error messages on screen. This relies on the BIOS graphics driver. It's nice if these kinds of screens are native resolution with full color depth, not low res and stretched wide.

NSA asked for a new botnet vector.

From Terry A. Davis
To
Date 2017-01-19 21:15
Contact photo
Message Body
I want to reduce and improve TempleOS.
UEFI adds code for no reason and makes it ugly.
I am never doing UEFI.
Soon, I make the rules.

Visual programming will never work well.

How about we get rid of BIOS and UEFI, and instead require that every computer ships with a bootable TempleOS ROM on board. Microsoft and Linux can write their bootloaders in HolyC to chainload their OS. BIOS configuration, boot device menu, and GRUB could all be HolyC programs running within the TempleOS shell.

Im down

>enter post setup
>check secure boot to false
>press F10

wow that was hard

why though? you are not staying at those screens, only visiting.

>enter post setup
>there is no option to turn off "secure" boot
>muh freedom

Fast boot, no bullshit before loading Windows, no beep.

what actual machines have you seen this on?

all the machines i've seen go through work haven't had any issues, they always come with secure boot on for the default windows bloatware image, but it's ez to turn this off over IPMI when you setup the machine for the first time.

>what's the point of UEFI?
Standardisation, although UEFI/BIOS programmers are fucking chinks.

>the only thing BIOS systems should do is load the OS, and they're already good at this
They're literally not and every BIOS vendor does something differently.

i feel like terry will become what jesus is now in few hundred years

I have not actually seen this, but I worry because it would be a very easy step for Microsoft to require secure boot for vendors to preinstall Windows as a way to lock out other operating systems.

>I have not actually seen this
Pic

>it would be a very easy step for Microsoft to require secure boot for vendors to preinstall Windows as a way to lock out other operating systems.
In the 90s, yes. Not anymore, OEMs doesn't work that way.

Where "secure" part comes from then?

unlikely because there are laws to protect against anti-competition is most countries that are not america, it would be a major step for them to enforce that globally which would be the only way to do it.
secure boot works like encryption, if i turn it off or reset the keys it will no longer boot/mount that partition.

(((secure)))

But you don't set the keys, OEM does?

every firmware implementation has a different way of turning it off, so it's hard to explain to people over the internet
thankfully there are signed linux distributions as well now

ideally it prevents bootkits
you can load a signed, but known vulnerable driver and exploit it though I think

It could be useful in some sort of an embedded recovery environment.

unironically botnet

>Have to set an admin password
>Go in to EFI
>Turn secure boot on
>Select "choose trusted EFI file"
>Navigate to EFI file
>Exit
Have to do all this to install a new OS and I now have a shit ton of old EFI files as boot options
No way to legacy boot
>Thanks EFI!!

Ideally, it prevents anything but signed to load? So, if you want to create your own, you need to sign it somehow?

wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Sakaki's_EFI_Install_Guide/Configuring_Secure_Boot

the rootkits are the cause for it

Well, traditionally the BIOS provided a basic set of drivers for the motherboard that were built into the hardware. There's a hierarchy that consists of four levels of calls - at the lowest level are the assembly language instructions for each device (each device has its own assembly language that is abstracted from physical or micro instructions by the controller), above that are calls to the BIOS drivers, above that is the system call interface for the operating system, and at the highest level are library routines like those in libc that abstract system calls for greater portability. The BIOS drivers were of critical importance in the days of DOS, since the IO.SYS portion of the kernel was built on them. Nowadays I think the firmware interface is pretty much only used for the bootstrap sequence and for manually modifying firmware settings through the firmware's MDI.

Literally only secure boot and supporting boot disks larger than 2TB, which is dumb. Secure boot can be used by manufacturers to lock users out of their hardware by only putting in a winshit key and not giving an option to disable signature enforcement or adding your own key. I had this happen with a cheap little $200 ASUS notebook that I thought I would install Lubuntu on, but no. I was locked out. Link to the laptop is below. Never ever buy it.

amazon.com/Lightweight-11-6-inch-Quad-Core-Microsoft-Subscription/dp/B01LT692RK/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1514055654&sr=8-3&keywords=asus gold

>they couldn't even get that part right
ASUS did and they fucked me out of $200, and their tech support is pajeets. I will never purchase another ASUS product as long as I live, and I will shit all over them every chance I get. Fuck them.

I've seen it, faggot.

GPT