[RESOLVED] UEFI vs. BIOS vs. rEFInd

[JeSuisFlaneur]

Is there an advantage to installing Buster with UEFI versus no-UEFI? I don't dual boot another OS, so, Buster is it.

Is the rEFInd a better option than GRUB if using UEFI?

[Segfault]

Define what's the meaning of better.
If this is how much junk gets installed just to boot a kernel then Grub2 is the worst indeed. I personally use EFI stub kernel, no extra bootloader of any kind.

[JeSuisFlaneur]

What advantage is there to using UEFI on Debian Buster instead of MBR? Not what is better.

[Segfault]

None. Once the kernel is loaded it takes over and controls all hardware. The task of the bootloader is to load the kernel. You can have very sophisticated bootloader like Grub2 which is almost like an OS itself. Or you may have none, UEFI firmware can load the OS directly. Provided this OS is compliant, like Linux EFI stub kernel.
When you use GPT partition table you may need to do some tweaking to get it working with legacy boot, so I'd say with GPT it is foolproof to boot in UEFI mode.

[p.H]

What advantage is there to using UEFI on Debian Buster instead of MBR?

I do not see any.

If this is how much junk gets installed just to boot a kernel then Grub2 is the worst indeed. I personally use EFI stub kernel, no extra bootloader of any kind.

For sure GRUB is bloated, and being able to boot a kernel directly without a boot loader may be seen as an advantage of EFI boot. But a boot loader like GRUB may come in handy when something goes wrong and you need to edit the kernel command line. I am afraid that few UEFI firmwares allow to do this (edit a EFI boot entry without a third-party tool). None of those I have used does.

[p.H]

When you use GPT partition table you may need to do some tweaking to get it working with legacy boot

The only tweak I ever had to apply to enable legacy boot with GPT with some flawed BIOS/legacy implementations is to set the boot flag in the protective MBR ("disk_set pmbr_boot on" in parted).

I'd say with GPT it is foolproof to boot in UEFI mode.

I'd say that so many existing UEFI implementations are so flawed that EFI boot is never foolproof even with GPT.

[Deb-fan]

Been a minute since I've had a uefi/gpt system. Would prefer gpt over mbr just cause, no 3 primary + extended partition junk. Personally like grub, didn't at 1st,also thought it was an over complicated mess but isn't when someone learns about it and gets used to it. Refind has a pretty boot screen with icons though grub2's can no doubt be customized. Never bothered learning how. So many ways someone can go about this really think try some and see what you like.

[Segfault]

@p.H

Whatever your issue is, my condolences. Sometimes grabbing a shovel and digging a hole to plant a tree can be a relief. For each their own, but you have to learn to diagnose yourself. People around you will be happier, too, once you get rid of chips on your shoulder.

[vmclark]

Define what's the meaning of better.
If this is how much junk gets installed just to boot a kernel then Grub2 is the worst indeed. I personally use EFI stub kernel, no extra bootloader of any kind.

I like this idea a lot. It has one caveat that prevents me from using it. The size needed to boot multiple distros.
So I just use my own grub.cfg file instead and don't bother with all the script nonsense to get what you need to boot.

[p.H]

It (EFI stub kernel) has one caveat that prevents me from using it. The size needed to boot multiple distros.

Do you mean that the kernel and initramfs files for multiple installations would take too much space on the EFI partition ?
Can't you use a bigger EFI partition ?

[vmclark]

Yes, I know I could, but I'm not going to. I would have to rearrange too many partitions. My comment was just that.

[p.H]

I would have to rearrange too many partitions.

What do you mean ?