Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230

 

 

 

Laptop hardware support

Ask for help with issues regarding the Installations of the Debian O/S.
Message
Author
User avatar
pylkko
Posts: 1802
Joined: 2014-11-06 19:02

Re: Laptop hardware support

#21 Post by pylkko »

Wheelerof4te wrote:^What about it? Millions of people are using their laptops bought since 2008. all around the world.
Milions of people do all kinds of stupid stuff around the world.
Are we supposed to use only hardware before the 10's in order to run 2017 software?
I don't know. I wrote that sentence on a 2008 laptop using 2017 software.
Wheelerof4te wrote:If you are concerned with non-free firmware blobs, why are you buying non-free hardware? Oh, because the truly "free" hardware doesn't exist.
That's like saying: "if you are concerned with how the modern food industry treats animals, why don't you go and eat non-animals. Oh yeah, because they don't exist". Not only does it exist, the premises are just as wrong and absurd as the conclusion. If you are concerned about something bad, certainly you should be allowed to talk about it even if you cannot currently act upon it...
Wheelerof4te wrote:Can't we all just face the fact, companies that generate profit (Intel, AMD, Broadcom, Realtek etc.) are the ones who build the hardware? If you think some company which is funded with donations only will one day build the free hardware, then you are hopelessly mistaken.
I think that this line of though it just wrong. 100% wrong. First of all, it's not about free hardware, but about open software. Open software does not need any hardware at all, and it does not need free hardware either. Second, there are indeed huge projects out there to create 100% free software stack and now also free/open hardware. For example, there are RISC-V based projects that intend to build and sell processors that are 100% open in the sense that the actual hardware can be reproduced by any one at home without a license or braking a patent and also without software copyright (for example, LowRISC, a not-for-profit community-driven organisation http://www.lowrisc.org/) Arduino is now coming out with a RISC-V based model also (although the had to pult it onto a Tensillica chip for whatever reason). So it is not only a phantasy or an ideal it is a real existing thing.
Wheelerof4te wrote:World ain't like that, and 80% (an understatement at best) of people don't care about any of the quirks happening inside their laptops. They just want something they bought with money to work, and work fast.
This whole 80% of the people argument is a bit off because no one here was addressing the 80% of the people, your elderly father is not participating in this discussion. This was a point answering a Debian user who wanted 100% free software.

I realize what you are saying that companies want to and need to protect their latest tech stuff from other competitors. I see this and approve of this. I think that new 3D-graphics things and VR can be closed. I'd just like there to be the option to not have to use those (as I don't need them). Also, how is something like the Intel ME protecting the companies cutting edge tech? It's just not.

User avatar
pylkko
Posts: 1802
Joined: 2014-11-06 19:02

Re: Laptop hardware support

#22 Post by pylkko »

luvr wrote:I don’t know... My own laptop came with Xubuntu 14.10 pre-installed, and was set up with Legacy BIOS boot (even though it does have UEFI on board). I have long since deleted the original Operating System, and repartitioned the harddisk under the GPT scheme, with a total of ten partitions. I haven’t seen a reason to switch it to UEFI boot, though. It currently has Debian Testing, Xubuntu 16.04, and Slackware 14.2 installed, and it works like a charm. It just so happens that I have no idea how UEFI boot would in any way be “better” (for whichever definition of “better” that you find appropriate)—or “worse”, for that matter.
The thing is... it's complicated:

http://www.rodsbooks.com/efi-bootloader ... -ugly.html

User avatar
RU55EL
Posts: 546
Joined: 2014-04-07 03:42
Location: /home/russel

Re: Laptop hardware support

#23 Post by RU55EL »

pylkko wrote:That is a good example of how things used to be better. Back in the day of Asus K55A's you did't need microcode and blobs for video and audio and all that.
Yeah, but it would have been nice if it didn't have UEFI boot...

luvr
Posts: 85
Joined: 2016-07-21 19:39
Location: Boom - The Home Town of Tomorrowland, Belgium

Re: Laptop hardware support

#24 Post by luvr »

Interesting reading... I knew about the rodsbooks.com site (it's where I learned all that I know about GPT), but I didn't know about the page on CSM.

A few details that caught my eye:
  • "Maybe enable the CSM if you plan to single-boot Linux. Native EFI-mode booting can be new and scary, which makes the CSM appealing; but sooner or later you'll need to learn about EFI."
    (I'm not "single-booting" Linux, even though I am booting only Linux. The bullet point illustrates exactly why CSM is appealing to me, even though the time has come for me to learn about UEFI.)
  • "Do leave the CSM enabled if you're installing Linux to a computer that already uses the CSM to boot all its other OSes."
    (My case exactly.)
  • "Under some circumstances, an EFI-path boot can shift to a BIOS-mode boot."
    (Huh?!?!? Perhaps "BIOS-mode boot", through CSM, isn't such a bad idea after all...)
  • "Another point requires mention: Many EFIs are very buggy."
    (No comment.)
All in all, great information, and it's good to be aware of this all, but not particularly convincing me to shun CSM.

User avatar
pylkko
Posts: 1802
Joined: 2014-11-06 19:02

Re: Laptop hardware support

#25 Post by pylkko »

The article actually says:
My advice is therefore to use the CSM only when it's absolutely required or in single-boot configurations, and to avoid it in other situations.
Which is entirely in line with what I said earlier. On uefi native systems CSM is just a less well implemented more complex way to boot attempting to be an "emulation" of bios. You apparently did happen to have a situation where you have to use CSM, or at least it might be better. But this is not a normal / common scenario

Doggybag
Posts: 15
Joined: 2017-08-15 08:14

Re: Laptop hardware support

#26 Post by Doggybag »

pylkko wrote:This whole 80% of the people argument is a bit off because no one here was addressing the 80% of the people, your elderly father is not participating in this discussion. This was a point answering a Debian user who wanted 100% free software.
Thankyou - and entirely correct. Of course I realise there are millions of people who use proprietary software on their PC and phone and are happy with it. (It seems like there are millions more who aren't happy with it and use it anyway, but that's another topic.) I'd rather use free software, for a variety of reasons, and that includes the boot code where possible.

And thanks for the links to the lowRISC project (and Rodsbooks) - sounds like an interesting project.

luvr
Posts: 85
Joined: 2016-07-21 19:39
Location: Boom - The Home Town of Tomorrowland, Belgium

Re: Laptop hardware support

#27 Post by luvr »

pylkko wrote:You apparently did happen to have a situation where you have to use CSM, or at least it might be better. But this is not a normal / common scenario
Agreed. If you want to keep the ability to run a pre-installed Windows system on a UEFI computer (which I guess is what the great majority of users will want to do), then UEFI-mode boot is the only option.
In my case, knowing that all major Linux distros must provide support for UEFI-mode boot by now, it doesn't really matter. It just so happens that I then prefer the familiarity of BIOS-mode boot. But perhaps, once I get more familiar with native UEFI mode, this may even change.

Post Reply