Hi,
On 4/11/22 01:07, Gabriel Ramirez wrote:
On 4/10/22 16:10, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 4:37 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> <dominik(a)greysector.net> wrote:
>> On Friday, 08 April 2022 at 16:14, Zamir SUN wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Probably it isn't a problem for some users, but I'm still having bad
>>> experience with UEFI on x86_64 now. Out of my 3 machines I only have 1
>>> system that works fine with UEFI. And my parents' laptop was purchased
>>> 2 years ago and the UEFI firmware does not allow to boot anything
>>> other than Windows on UEFI mode (regardless of turning secure boot on
>>> or off) and I have to switch to BIOS mode to make Fedora work there.
>>> So in this situation, I think it's way too aggressive to accept the
>>> change - this will probably drive away some potential new users with
>>> decent laptop like my parents'.
>> Have you tried renaming your Fedora boot entry to "Windows Boot
>> Manager"? I have one Sony laptop that boots only the boot entry with
>> that exact name.
>>
> I wonder if this would work with one of my old machines too. I've
> never thought to rename the boot entry in the firmware before...
>
>
about "Windows Boot Manager" efi entry required to boot:
https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20187.html
the above happens too with the lenovo thinkcentre m91
Yes and some UEFI-s will only consider non USB disks to be bootable if they
have a FAT ESP with EFI/Microsoft/Boot/bootmgfw.efi on there.
Some of them are hardcoded to boot that file (just put shim + grubia32.efi
/ grubx64.efi there), while others check for the file, but boot another
path (which may also be hardcoded) see:
https://hansdegoede.dreamwidth.org/24232.html
For a couple of devices which I encountered which do this. I did not
know about the "Windows Boot Manager" name being a thing too.
So yes so much for UEFI being a sensible standard...
Regards,
Hans