| |||||||||||||
Duplicating EFI functionality is a waste of timeDuplicating EFI functionality is a waste of timePosted Jul 10, 2012 3:09 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)In reply to: Duplicating EFI functionality is a waste of time by mjg59 Parent article: The FSF's advice to distributors on UEFI secure boot
It seems that EFI has most of the features of GRUB and 90% of what is truly needed to direct boot a Linux kernel. Changing the Linux kernel and boot process to make it better integrate with EFI and changing the reference implementation of EFI when necessary sounds like a reasonable idea. Working on some conventions with the vendors to make the UI decent also seems like it would pay off in time. Maybe this would only work if you had a close relationship with some preferred vendors to ensure an Apple level of user experience.
(Log in to post comments)
Duplicating EFI functionality is a waste of time Posted Jul 10, 2012 3:12 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
Given that even Microsoft use a full-featured EFI bootloader I have no faith whatsoever in our ability to get every vendor to adopt a common level of UI competence.
Duplicating EFI functionality is a waste of time Posted Jul 10, 2012 4:21 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
The whole thing seems like a missed opportunity then as we are going to be stuck with EFI for at least the next 20 years.
|
|||||||||||||