On 7/2/20 3:19 PM, Martin Jackson wrote:
> 5-10 years? A better estimate would be 15-20 years. People aren't
> going to
> throw away perfectly fine systems and jump to new "cloud" platforms just
> because the OS they were using dropped BIOS support. They'll just stop
> updating, and likely move to something that is still supporting BIOS,
> if they
> don't write their own installer and just continue using Fedora, given
> this is an entirely artificial limitation.
While I completely hear you on the fact that people will often sweat
assets for years longer than accounting schedules suggest they should,
do you really think they're going to write custom installers??? I think
it's far more likely that they would move to other distros more amenable
to supporting the hardware they have.
There are many distros that cater to this kind of market already, some
by design and some by inclination.?? I don't think we want to drive them
For what it's worth, I do not think that removing legacy BIOS support
from Fedora is the right thing to do.?? I don't see significant benefit,
and I see lots of potential harm.
I don't think removing BIOS support _today_ is the right answer either.
I have BIOS only hardware kicking around, and quite a bit of my UEFI
hardware still supports legacy BIOS booting as well (though I don't use it).
However, I'm concerned about UEFI feature development / quality
assurance being held hostage by BIOS support for, based on above
comments, 5 to 20 years? Surely as a somewhat leading-edge distribution,
we need to start thinking about some kind of post-BIOS world.
Perhaps one small step toward that future would be enabling systemd-boot
on new UEFI installs, relegating GRUB2 to BIOS and upgrade installs
only? This split configuration could hang around until support for GRUB2
/ BIOS wanes to the point it can no longer stand under its own weight
(much like 32bit install media).