On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:24:12AM +0200, Edward Bartolo wrote: > Contrary to the main argumentative line of this thread, I found EFI > far better than BIOS booting. The fact that a dedicated partition is > used to hold the primary boot loaders, is a great advantage. With > BIOS, the booloader was placed in the first sector's initial 446 bytes > of data with the remaining defining the partition table of just 64 > bits. Furthermore, additional data was also written where the > bootloader's second stage main executable was saved on disk. > > EFI is as simple as placing the bootloader's first state in the EFI > System Partition. This is much simpler. I haven't tried secure boot > with Linux, but using a signed primary bootloader from distributions > that offer that, should solve the problem.
And what if you want to use your own unsigned bootloader? Why should you ask someone else the permission to boot your own machine? o_O HND KatolaZ -- [ ~.,_ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ - Devuan -- Freaknet Medialab ] [ "+. katolaz [at] freaknet.org --- katolaz [at] yahoo.it ] [ @) http://kalos.mine.nu --- Devuan GNU + Linux User ] [ @@) http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia -- GPG: 0B5F062F ] [ (@@@) Twitter: @KatolaZ - skype: katolaz -- github: KatolaZ ]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
