Is the hammer a solution?

[debie]

I'm beginning to think it is the *only* solution.

I have a PC which came with Windows 8.1 pre-installed. I attempted to install ubuntu but it for some reason didn't "take". It seemed to install okay, but the computer does *not* automatically boot. I can make the computer start it, by selecting it in a menu at startup (this is *not* the usual graphical menu one gets when ubuntu is properly installed - perhaps the standard MS loader but I can't be sure about that).

So to hell with ubuntu, I really can't stand it much more than Windows anyway.

I've tried two methods. First I downloaded the AMD64 DVD "live" iso, burned that to a DVD, and rebooted via Windows' UEFI thing. Except it didn't. The DVD simply didn't boot. The computer sat there a while, then booted into Windows as usual.

So I downloaded a minimal CD version. Same story, pretty much, except now Windows refuses to show the DVD/CD device in the list of boot candidates, so I can't use that. To be clear, the "BIOS" says the device can be used to boot from, it's Windows that is choosing to not let me use it.

Any alternatives short of a hammer?

[arochester]

https://www.howtogeek.com/175641/how-to ... cure-boot/ ?

[phenest]

Your "solution" depends on what you're going to use the hammer on: the computer or yourself.

It sounds to me like the first installation you did was actually successful as you said you could boot from it albeit manually. The problem is probably EFI booting. To be honest, I wish I never did it that way on my computers. It's a headache, and takes a while to understand how it works and how to install an OS.

My advice would be to disable EFI booting in the BIOS (enable Legacy?), and start again.

And don't touch the hammer!

[debie]

Would you perhaps like to tell me why you think that is relevant, arochester, instead of expecting me to read your mind?

[debie]

My advice would be to disable EFI booting in the BIOS (enable Legacy?), and start again.

But I would really much rather have Debian than Ubuntu.

Do you mean SafeBoot? It is disabled.

[phenest]

I meant start again, but with Debian.

In your BIOS there should be something called Secure Boot (which is what arochester was referring to), which you should disable, and something called Legacy booting which you should enable. Legacy booting might be called something else like CSM. Or, instead of enabling Legacy, it might have EFI booting which you should disable.

Then try installing Debian.

[GarryRicketson]

Is the hammer a solution?

No


Sorry, I just couldn't resist

[phenest]

Do you mean SafeBoot? It is disabled.

I guess that could be the same as Secure Boot. Each vendor words things slightly differently.

[debie]

Do you mean SafeBoot? It is disabled.

I guess that could be the same as Secure Boot. Each vendor words things slightly differently.

Sorry, I meant Secure Boot. It's been a long, frustrating day.

[debie]

Is the hammer a solution?

No


Sorry, I just couldn't resist

It's spot on

[stevepusser]

The live ISOs are not currently compatible with UEFI--that's in the documentation, or easily found out with a web search.

Perhaps it will help us to help you to list exactly what your computer setup has regarding UEFI and Secure Boot status. Or maybe try a Debian derivative that makes running and installing a live ISO a bit easier for a total beginner?

[acewiza]

Would you perhaps like to tell me why you think that is relevant, arochester, instead of expecting me to read your mind?

I believe he expected you to read the information offered and decide for yourself what may or may not be relevant to your particular situation.

The dearth of details available in this case makes mind reading more of a task objective pointing towards you.

[dasein]

Or maybe try a Debian derivative that makes running and installing a live ISO a bit easier for a total beginner?

+1

I find myself increasingly unsympathetic to beginners who try to install a distro more suitable for intermediate users (Debian) and then complain about how frustrating it is.

"Linux From Scratch is sooooo hard to install," cries the newbie. WFW.

Compared to most other distros, Debian requires more effort in terms of installation and configuration. It just does. Either (a) embrace that as a feature or (b) treat it as an unavoidable annoyance or (c) pick a different distro.

[edbarx]

I found EFI booting is much simpler than legacy boot. Yes, it took me about a week to figure out how to create and fill a new EFI System Partition (FAT32), as there were none, and I couldn't make legacy boot work on a GPT formatted disk.

[Lysander]

Or maybe try a Debian derivative that makes running and installing a live ISO a bit easier for a total beginner?

+1

I find myself increasingly unsympathetic to beginners who try to install a distro more suitable for intermediate users (Debian) and then complain about how frustrating it is.

"Linux From Scratch is sooooo hard to install," cries the newbie. WFW.

Compared to most other distros, Debian requires more effort in terms of installation and configuration. It just does. Either (a) embrace that as a feature or (b) treat it as an unavoidable annoyance or (c) pick a different distro.

If the OP is a total beginner Debian is indeed not the way to go. I only started using Linux in February myself but started with Ubuntu which is much friendlier [and recommended]. I wanted to start with Debian but there were too many things I didn't understand. Only after sitting down and ploughing through my difficulties a couple of weeks ago [over several hours] do I now have a Debian install that works exactly like I want [well, 99%], and this success was helped by the knowledge I gained through using Ubuntu, from the Ubuntu forums, in Mint and on here. It would be much better for the OP to go with Ubuntu/Mint, which are both excellent in their own rights, adjust to them, learn with them/from them and then move on if necessary.

[pylkko]

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.

[Dai_trying]

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.

[Bulkley]

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.

[stevepusser]

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

[pylkko]

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