On 30.6.2020 19:22, Robbie Harwood wrote:
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson <johannbg(a)gmail.com> writes:
> On 30.6.2020 17:49, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 30, 2020 6:34:27 AM MST Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
>>> Given Hans proposal  introduced systemd/grub2/Gnome upstream changes
>>> it beg the question if now would not be the time to stop supporting
>>> booting in legacy bios mode and move to uefi only supported boot which
>>> has been available on any common intel based x86 platform since atleast
>> This is simply false. I'm currently writing this email on a ThinkPad X200
>> Tablet, which does not support UEFI. I can get dropping x86 support, but
>> dropping BIOS boot support?
> Such proposal would never be about stop supporting older hardware that's
> just a misconception people are getting
> And it's quite evident by the response here that hw that is atleast 2010
> and older is still quite happily being used and that hw does not support
> UEFI and no one is talking about taking that away anytime soon.
> The first step ( The actual change proposal ) would simply be about
> replace grub2 with sd-boot for UEFI strictly on the x86 architecture
> which has UEFI available and enabled ( is not using legacy bios ) and
> see what issue are encountered, solve those then consider moving to
> different architectures and further integration if relevant etc. (
> baby steps ) Next I would suggest looking at UEFI supported ARM
> systems ( but I personally would have to obtain such hardware before
> doing so ).
But... why? It's not like grub2 doesn't work for booting UEFI. Doesn't
seem like there's a point in running through all the issues that grub2
already solved again.
I think we put different meaning in maintainance,usability and issues if
you think grub solves anything but I mentioned this elsewhere in the
thread and justification/selling points usually end up on the change
proposals but I'll repeat it here ;)
sd-boot is already installed on end users system, is light weight
compared to Grub ( sd-boot only supports uefi,smaller code size, easier
to maintain ).
It already integrates with the service management framework (systemd).
More user friendly than Grub ( has lilo like interface easier to change
kernel entry, which goes nicely with the default editor change )
Gnome related changes such as Hans is proposing might be easier to
integrate for the desktop team ( less work, problem being fixed where it
arguably should be as opposed to systemd,grub and gnome for his feature
to work and more future proof work for the desktop team).
Could help further adapt UEFI and secure boot which the industry is
moving towards which helps keep Fedora moving along with it.
If correctly implemented ( baby steps and without excluding anyone)
should be a win win for Fedora, developers and end users alike.
Grub discourages users who have tried sd-boot from coming/returning to
Bottom line I think this will be a good move for the distribution and a
good time to start looking into and make that move.