What do you think about the UEFI booting scheme? Not the GPT partitioning scheme, that's a different topic.

What do you think about the UEFI booting scheme? Not the GPT partitioning scheme, that's a different topic.

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    a clusterfuck despite being a standard

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's okay. Not good, not terrible, but okay. Needing separate boot partitions for everything and storing entries in NVRAM is just fundamentally retarded though and Secure Boot needs redesigned from the ground up to not be completely bypassable from a booted userland.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      compared to what was before, it's not bad

      secureboot and chain of trust needs to go. SKINIT-like reinitialization and measurement should be the way forward

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >What do you think about the UEFI booting scheme?
      another """open standard""" by microsoft, for microsoft, released with dogshit documentation, just like ACPI

      >completely bypassable from a booted userland.
      what, you fucking retard, you want your system to be even more toddlerized?

      compared to what was before, it's not bad

      secureboot and chain of trust needs to go. SKINIT-like reinitialization and measurement should be the way forward

      >SKINIT
      >dude microcode lmao
      all those VM autism instructions are unique to x64. what, you WANT to be stuck on x86 for another century?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >i dont know what -like means

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          no other ISA implements anything remotely like SKINIT

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            because none of them are used anywhere where it's needed. reinit-remeasure is meaningful if the state is uncertain, like because it's a modular computer with god knows what hardware and their oproms were loaded.
            I hope that modular computers will survive the death of x86

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >I hope that modular computers will survive the death of x86
              lmao, consumer x86 hasnt been modular for years
              >soldered CPU
              >soldered RAM
              >soldered wifi chipset
              >soldered keycaps
              >soldered charging cord

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >soldered keycaps
                I always use extra solder

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >storing entries in NVRAM is just fundamentally retarded

      Can you explain to a fellow retard why this is retarded? I mean, you could store the entries on the hard disk, but you can move that to a different motherboard. What's the right place to store those entries?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not that poster
        It's retarded because it can't be reset to a known good state by unplugging the battery

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Year of our lord 2222
    >We're still booting off of fat32

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      this lol
      would it kill microsoft to write the ~200 lines of driver code to replace it with ext2?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Doesnt really do anything better than BIOS except muh secure boot

      Some newer BIOSes support NTFS, and Applel uses HFS+ for UEFI

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Some newer BIOSes support NTFS
        Holy bloat.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          UEFI in general is a bloated mess
          In theory it's more flexible than BIOSes were but in practice this just means that manufacturers fill it up with shitty buggy modules and let the users live with the consequences

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            as if they werent doing that to BIOS

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Doesnt really do anything better than BIOS except muh secure boot
        lol, comparing a 16 bit unstandardized mess with several calling conventions and error reporting mechanisms to a proper standard with 64 bit PE module loading is "not really better"?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The end result is worse, now you have hundreds of buggy modules instead of something that isn't too bloated to debug

          as if they werent doing that to BIOS

          Not to that extent.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >unstandardized mess
          You talk exactly like the Wayland fanboys.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            anti-waylanders are the antivaxxers of Linux

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              So I was right with my post. You're a retarded Wayland fanboy too. Figures.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                (checked)
                you sound like one of those freetrannies running debian on a 10 year old thinkpad convincing thenselves it's the most secure device ever because you totally reviewed all the source code so permissions and sandboxing are unnecessary

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >unstandardized mess
              You talk exactly like the Wayland fanboys.

              So I was right with my post. You're a retarded Wayland fanboy too. Figures.

              >HURRR DURRR MAH SKUB
              we're talking about UEFI here, bots, pay attention.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >16 bit unstandardized mess
          de-facto industry standard interface with very few exceptions, like the rest of the AT-clone world. 16-bit-only makes it a pain in the cunt to use in 64-bit mode.
          >UEFI
          >proper standard
          lol, lmao even. in practice, UEFI is less standardized than fucking BIOS. there is a "standard" but its written so terribly that it may as well not exist. vendors never follow the standard.
          >64-bit PE module loading
          >"not really better"
          correct. i want to write an OS, not sit and fuck with your special-snowflake 64-bit MS-DOS clone and its million APIs and structures.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    OpenFirmware was a simpler, better designed technology sitting around for the lifetime of x86-64 but no, Intel had to be different and bring their Microsofty retardation straight into the boot process because that's what they were used to. They'd rather shit up the boot process with unnecessary bloat than change their habits. Idiot fucks.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

Your email address will not be published.