Is the hammer a solution?

Help with issues regarding installation of Debian

Re: Is the hammer a solution?

Postby pylkko » 2017-04-27 19:45

edbarx wrote:I found EFI booting is much simpler than legacy boot.
+1. legacy boot is often unreliable and just unnecessary. Don't enable it. Also, secure boot is a joke so just turn it off and forget about it. Also, read more.
User avatar
pylkko
 
Posts: 884
Joined: 2014-11-06 19:02

Re: Is the hammer a solution?

Postby Dai_trying » 2017-04-27 21:13

I had a few issues getting used to EFI booting, but now I much prefer it to BIOS(legacy) options. And hopefully (if what I have read is true) it won't be necessary to remove secure boot when Stretch goes stable.
Dai_trying
 
Posts: 185
Joined: 2016-01-07 12:25

Re: Is the hammer a solution?

Postby Bulkley » 2017-04-27 22:22

Dai_trying wrote: And hopefully (if what I have read is true) it won't be necessary to remove secure boot when Stretch goes stable.


What pylkko was hinting at is that there are easy work-arounds that get by secure boot - a live-USB for example. Secure boot doesn't fool those you want to keep out.
Bulkley
 
Posts: 5100
Joined: 2006-02-11 18:35

Re: Is the hammer a solution?

Postby stevepusser » 2017-04-27 22:31

Many would say it's doing great at what it's really intended to do--make it harder to install anything but Windows.
The MX Linux repositories: Backports galore! If we don't have something, just ask and we'll try--we like challenges. New packages: AzPainter 2.0.4, Pale Moon 27.3.0, Liquorix kernel 4.11-4, mpv 0.25.0, Kodi 17.1, Ksnip 1.3.1, Mesa 13.0.6
User avatar
stevepusser
 
Posts: 8218
Joined: 2009-10-06 05:53

Re: Is the hammer a solution?

Postby pylkko » 2017-04-28 05:44

Bulkley wrote:
Dai_trying wrote: And hopefully (if what I have read is true) it won't be necessary to remove secure boot when Stretch goes stable.


What pylkko was hinting at is that there are easy work-arounds that get by secure boot - a live-USB for example. Secure boot doesn't fool those you want to keep out.

Actually I think that secure boot does not allow USB booting if the OS is not cryptographically signed by Microsoft (but I am not sure, since I don't ever use it). However, what I was hinting at is that Microsoft accidently leaked a backdoor that allows anyone to bypass Secure Boot:
http://fortune.com/2016/08/11/uh-oh-mic ... s-devices/

Therefore Secure Boot is just an useless extra complication.

Many people have reported problems and bugs with UEFI lefacy modes. Using an old real BIOS computer makes sense, but trying to legacy it on a UEFI firmwared computer might work but might not work and is extra complicaition

Secure Boot was originally supposed to be a part of Debian 9.0 when it comes out. However, this has now been dropped as a requirement, and it may be that when Stretch is released that it will not support Secure Boot.

https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-a ... 00013.html
Last edited by pylkko on 2017-04-28 08:00, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
pylkko
 
Posts: 884
Joined: 2014-11-06 19:02

Re: Is the hammer a solution?

Postby Head_on_a_Stick » 2017-04-28 06:03

edbarx wrote:I found EFI booting is much simpler than legacy boot.

+1

edbarx wrote:I couldn't make legacy boot work on a GPT formatted disk.

The non-UEFI version of GRUB needs a special BIOS boot partition to hold the bootloader because there is no space for it on a GUID partition table.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIOS_boot_partition

I like to use gdisk to generate the BIOS boot partition: press "n" to add a new partition and accept the default start and end sectors (these will be 34 & 2047, respectively, in a full disk) then select partition type ef02 and use "w" to write the changes to the disk — *do not* format the new partition.

Once this is done, the non-UEFI version of GRUB can be installed and used.

https://packages.debian.org/jessie/grub-pc

However, some motherboards will not boot with this method at all and it is recommend to use a traditional "MBR-style" (msdos) partition table instead on disks to be used in a non-UEFI system.

@OP: disable Secure Boot.
“Controlling complexity is the essence of computer programming."Brian Kernighan

Please read before posting How to report a problem
User avatar
Head_on_a_Stick
 
Posts: 6488
Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
Location: /dev/chair

Re: Is the hammer a solution?

Postby acewiza » 2017-04-28 13:07

stevepusser wrote:Many would say it's doing great at what it's really intended to do--make it harder to install anything but Windows.

Ah yes - the root of the problem. We spend so much time discussing and arguing over the symptoms, when the root cause is right there in front of us all along. 8)
User avatar
acewiza
 
Posts: 184
Joined: 2013-05-28 12:38
Location: Out West

Re: Is the hammer a solution?

Postby edbarx » 2017-04-28 16:27

However, some motherboards will not boot with this method at all and it is recommend to use a traditional "MBR-style" (msdos) partition table instead on disks to be used in a non-UEFI system.

It is very probable I failed to use legacy boot for this reason. I remember I did create a 1MB empty partition for non-UEFI GRUB to install the first boot stage. I wanted a GPT formatted disk at all costs having in the not so remote past lost at least an installation in an extended partition. An GPT formatted disk makes such an event a little harder to happen again.
Debian == { > 30, 000 packages }; Debian != systemd
The worst infection of all, is a false sense of security!
It is hard to get away from CLI tools.
User avatar
edbarx
 
Posts: 5378
Joined: 2007-07-18 06:19
Location: 35° 50 N, 14 º 35 E

Previous

Return to Installation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

fashionable