Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #66499 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-03-21 03:04 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-03-23 07:59 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 134 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
F2FS On USB Sticks? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-21 03:04 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-21 03:13 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-21 19:01 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-21 19:40 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-22 14:17 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-26 21:00 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-28 14:49 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-28 21:18 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-28 23:17 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-29 00:01 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-28 23:18 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-28 23:55 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-29 00:02 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-29 09:13 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-31 01:28 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-31 03:57 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-31 11:48 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-28 20:00 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-29 13:47 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-30 03:14 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2025-03-30 23:48 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-31 04:37 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2025-03-21 11:20 +0200
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-21 12:25 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-21 07:31 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-21 13:20 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-21 19:11 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-03-22 00:41 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-03-22 11:42 +1000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-03-22 07:07 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-22 13:37 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-03-23 07:49 +1000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-27 06:21 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-03-28 07:28 +1000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-22 04:38 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-03-22 11:21 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-22 14:07 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-03-22 17:29 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-22 20:37 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-03-23 08:25 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-23 14:49 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2025-03-22 23:28 +0200
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-22 23:25 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-03-23 08:26 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-27 04:42 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-27 04:13 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-22 13:39 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-22 15:26 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-03-22 17:52 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-03-22 19:02 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2025-03-22 23:35 +0200
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-03-23 08:28 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-23 14:57 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-03-23 11:58 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-27 06:17 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-27 05:41 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-03-27 16:49 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-23 05:58 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-03-23 07:55 +1000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-03-23 08:28 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-03-23 16:33 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-27 06:11 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-06 05:10 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-06 06:42 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-06 07:07 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-03-22 22:59 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-23 00:46 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-22 20:39 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-23 05:57 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-03-23 11:04 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-23 07:15 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-03-23 15:37 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-03-23 16:41 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-03-23 17:50 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-23 18:02 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-24 11:33 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-24 13:30 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-27 06:19 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-03-22 17:47 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-22 20:41 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-22 13:35 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-03-22 19:09 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-23 00:52 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-23 06:05 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-03-23 19:06 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-23 23:36 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-03-24 06:48 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-24 03:49 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-24 11:31 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-25 01:18 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-25 11:13 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-25 08:31 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-25 14:20 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-03-26 04:39 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-26 04:22 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-03-26 17:09 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-27 03:51 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-03-27 18:09 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-27 18:55 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-03-27 23:53 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-28 05:16 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-28 07:21 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-03-28 18:51 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2025-03-27 11:41 +0200
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-03-28 07:44 +1000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-29 00:18 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-29 13:44 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-03-29 17:20 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-29 19:59 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-03-30 00:31 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-30 18:10 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-30 02:59 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-30 18:11 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-03-30 18:26 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-31 04:19 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-03-31 17:38 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-31 03:58 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-03-30 18:19 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-31 04:16 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-03-26 04:16 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-03-22 14:04 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-22 13:50 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-27 07:31 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-23 05:49 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-27 02:33 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-21 20:28 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-21 19:06 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-21 22:08 +0100
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-21 20:54 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-03-22 11:47 +1000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-03-22 04:47 -0400
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-22 13:49 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-03-22 13:45 +0000
Re: F2FS On USB Sticks? not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-03-23 07:59 +1000
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-23 14:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g4g5blxsl3.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #66553 |
On 2025-03-23 08:25, Marc Haber wrote: > "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> On 2025-03-22 17:29, Marc Haber wrote: >>> You can boot live images via grub, so boot grub via UEFI and point it >>> towards the iso that also resides on the UEFI partition. The >>> grml-rescueboot package on Debian-based systems might give some hints. >> >> Ah. So not directly from uefi. Not much use when it is grub which is >> failing. > > UEFI grub usually doesn't fail. It a least gets you to a shell. And > you can have a second grub for the rescue image. > >>>>>> Don't love UEFI at all >>>>> >>>>> You should! It's neat. >>>> >>>> Yep. >>> >>> I am positively impressed every time my fwupdmgr puts a Firmware >>> update on the UEFI partition and the next system boot will >>> transparently install it. From a Linux OS! >> >> I have not done that. > > Just install fwupd and see it working automagically. I probably have it installed, it does nothing. fwupdagent fwupdate fwupdmgr fwupdtool -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-22 23:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sm0frj4sqkc.fsf@lakka.kapsi.fi> |
| In reply to | #66535 |
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes: > You can boot live images via grub, so boot grub via UEFI and point it > towards the iso that also resides on the UEFI partition. The > grml-rescueboot package on Debian-based systems might give some hints. But why the EFI partition? Grub can boot images from any partition. I keep my collection of GRML images on a largish stuff partition on an HD and the grml-rescueboot adds those to the grub menu.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-22 23:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <cvp3blxg2o.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #66544 |
On 2025-03-22 22:28, Anssi Saari wrote: > Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes: > >> You can boot live images via grub, so boot grub via UEFI and point it >> towards the iso that also resides on the UEFI partition. The >> grml-rescueboot package on Debian-based systems might give some hints. > > But why the EFI partition? Grub can boot images from any partition. I > keep my collection of GRML images on a largish stuff partition on an HD > and the grml-rescueboot adds those to the grub menu. Grub can, but the firmware can not. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-23 08:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vrod3h$3iiob$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #66544 |
Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote: >Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes: >> You can boot live images via grub, so boot grub via UEFI and point it >> towards the iso that also resides on the UEFI partition. The >> grml-rescueboot package on Debian-based systems might give some hints. > >But why the EFI partition? Doesnt need anything else. If the EFI partition is broken you're hosed anyway, you couldn't boot a rescue image then anyway. Having rescue system on a different filesystem means another filesystem that needs to be okay to be able to boot to rescue, and another filesystem that can fill up and cause trouble. Greetings Marc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-27 04:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vs2l0e$3evlh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #66521 |
On Sat, 22 Mar 2025 11:21:23 +0100, Marc Haber wrote: >> Don't love UEFI at all > > You should! It's neat. The idea may seem good, the execution seems to leave something to be desired. It’s supposed to be OS-independent, but in practice the vendors only test that it boots Windows OK before shipping. So it’s left to the developers of the other OSes (mainly Linux, of course) to add hacks to work around all the bugs and gaps in their implementations of the spec.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-27 04:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <WxadnVVJ3YgglXj6nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #66650 |
On 3/27/25 12:42 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Sat, 22 Mar 2025 11:21:23 +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > >>> Don't love UEFI at all >> >> You should! It's neat. > > The idea may seem good, the execution seems to leave something to be > desired. It’s supposed to be OS-independent, but in practice the vendors > only test that it boots Windows OK before shipping. So it’s left to the > developers of the other OSes (mainly Linux, of course) to add hacks to > work around all the bugs and gaps in their implementations of the spec. Yep ... wound up seriously dedicated to Winders. Tricks/tweaks/pain associated with making it work OK with Linux and other stuff. STILL worry about it being 'vulnerable' - spying, hacking. IF it's practical to get non-UEFI boot then I still go that way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-22 13:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vrmeiq$1sbl$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #66519 |
On 22/03/2025 08:38, c186282 wrote: > On 3/21/25 8:41 PM, rbowman wrote: >> On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 19:11:40 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> >>> My other usage is Raspberry Pi SD cards which are two partitions in IIRC >>> VFAT and EXT4 >> >> That may be inherited from Debian. vfat is used for /boot/firmware or / >> boot/efi for UEFI compatibility. >> >> fwiw when it's mounted the Pico 2 shows as vfat. I assume the Pico does >> also but the two I have hooked up are running so don't show as a mount. > > At present, every Linux I've used, the UEFI stuff is > ALWAYS in a FAT partition. However it's SMALL, not > a prob. > > Don't love UEFI at all ... but these days it's harder > and harder to NOT have that partition. Sad but true. I am sure its all frightfully necessary, but for home use you just want to boot the bloody computer, not have to go through all that rigmarole. IN a way getting a PI to boot is actually simpler... -- Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get. Mark Twain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-22 15:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <fut2blx5lk.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #66530 |
On 2025-03-22 14:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 22/03/2025 08:38, c186282 wrote: >> On 3/21/25 8:41 PM, rbowman wrote: >>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 19:11:40 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> >>>> My other usage is Raspberry Pi SD cards which are two partitions in >>>> IIRC >>>> VFAT and EXT4 >>> >>> That may be inherited from Debian. vfat is used for /boot/firmware or / >>> boot/efi for UEFI compatibility. >>> >>> fwiw when it's mounted the Pico 2 shows as vfat. I assume the Pico >>> does >>> also but the two I have hooked up are running so don't show as a mount. >> >> At present, every Linux I've used, the UEFI stuff is >> ALWAYS in a FAT partition. However it's SMALL, not >> a prob. >> >> Don't love UEFI at all ... but these days it's harder >> and harder to NOT have that partition. > Sad but true. I am sure its all frightfully necessary, but for home use > you just want to boot the bloody computer, not have to go through all > that rigmarole. At home, many people boot multiple operating systems from the same disk; UEFI has made this easier. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-22 17:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m48bn9Fme0qU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #66534 |
On Sat, 22 Mar 2025 15:26:55 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > At home, many people boot multiple operating systems from the same disk; > UEFI has made this easier. Dual boot worked find for years before UEFI. When MS went to secure boot in Windows 8 it became a major PITA to dual boot before the Linux distros caught up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-22 19:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vrmtvf$3f2ff$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #66537 |
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >On Sat, 22 Mar 2025 15:26:55 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> At home, many people boot multiple operating systems from the same disk; >> UEFI has made this easier. > >Dual boot worked find for years before UEFI. When MS went to secure boot >in Windows 8 it became a major PITA to dual boot before the Linux distros >caught up. Dual Boot has always an unstable, fragile PITA. Thankfully we have Virtualization now which has Dual Boot mostly obsolete. Greetings Marc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-22 23:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sm0bjtssq99.fsf@lakka.kapsi.fi> |
| In reply to | #66538 |
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes: > Dual Boot has always an unstable, fragile PITA. I've usually had two or more OSes on my main PC, since from around 1995 or so. Hasn't been unstable, fragile or PITA. Virtualization isn't a solution for my current use case of having Windows for games, Arch Linux for seeing how new Linux stuff runs and looks like on my HW and Debian for everything else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-23 08:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vrod60$3iipn$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #66545 |
Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote: >Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes: >> Dual Boot has always an unstable, fragile PITA. > >I've usually had two or more OSes on my main PC, since from around 1995 >or so. Hasn't been unstable, fragile or PITA. Then you're lucky. To be able to fix a broken dualboot you need intimate knowlegde of all platforms. Most people don't have that. Greetings Marc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-23 14:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <djg5blxm15.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #66555 |
On 2025-03-23 08:28, Marc Haber wrote: > Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote: >> Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes: >>> Dual Boot has always an unstable, fragile PITA. >> >> I've usually had two or more OSes on my main PC, since from around 1995 >> or so. Hasn't been unstable, fragile or PITA. > > Then you're lucky. To be able to fix a broken dualboot you need > intimate knowlegde of all platforms. Most people don't have that. I remember my first laptop. Windows was installed, and used three primary partitions. I could create an extended partition, add some logical partitions, and install grub on the extended itself. Then, Windows would refuse some updates because its boot partition was no longer marked bootable. I had to mark partition 1, boot Windows thus, run the upgrade (7 to 10, probably), and then mark again partition 4 as bootable. Then I learned that I could replace the code in the MBR by a hacked one that boots partition 4, even though partition 1 was marked bootable. Windwos was happy, but grub booted first. It worked, but it was a hack, and could fail anytime Windows would do something. And then there were other machines that came with all four primary partitions used. What to do then? It is not trivial. UEFI, on the other hand, is designed to boot multiple systems. Having the boot signed is a different thing. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-23 11:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.23vdbuaoa3w0dxdave@hodgins.homeip.net> |
| In reply to | #66572 |
On Sun, 23 Mar 2025 09:57:33 -0400, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: <snip> > UEFI, on the other hand, is designed to boot multiple systems. Having > the boot signed is a different thing. I used to use the gag boot loader on the mbr, grub (legacy) on each linux partition boot record, so that a problem with one install had no impact on another install. Each install was isolated except for a data partition shared between them. With grub2, I changed to one disk per install in order to keep one install from impacting another. While grub2 can be installed on the pbr, most installers will only install it on an mbr. With uefi, while it's still possible to have multiple installs, it is not possible to keep them isolated from each other. Any install can break all installs. The only way to keep each install isolated is to have one install per machine. uefi is a mini operating system developed primarily for the purpose of making it harder for other operating systems to be used, and to boost pc sales. The attack surface it exposes allows undetectable root kits to be installed, or machines to be easily bricked just by deleting the efivars from the nvram. uefi is marketed as improving security. While it may block amateur attackers, it is a security nightmare. The only possible way to ensure a uefi computer does not have a stealth rootkit already installed is to remove it's nvram and use a reader attached to another system. In most cases the nvram is soldered onto the motherboard. Regards, Dave Hodgins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-27 06:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vs2qh4$3jchh$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #66575 |
On Sun, 23 Mar 2025 11:58:32 -0400, David W. Hodgins wrote: > uefi is a mini operating system developed primarily for the purpose of > making it harder for other operating systems to be used, and to boost pc > sales. The attack surface it exposes allows undetectable root kits to > be installed, or machines to be easily bricked just by deleting the > efivars from the nvram. Harsh ... but fair ... > uefi is marketed as improving security. While it may block amateur > attackers, it is a security nightmare. To me, the big security nightmare seems to be “Secure Boot”, which so far has been anything but. It was supposed to be possible to revoke security keys for compromised bootloaders/OSes, but this turned out to be impossible in practice <https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-pulls-security-update-after-reports-of-issues-affecting-some-pcs/>.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-27 05:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lLSdnXQVWYzNgHj6nZ2dnZfqn_EAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #66652 |
On 3/27/25 2:17 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Sun, 23 Mar 2025 11:58:32 -0400, David W. Hodgins wrote: > >> uefi is a mini operating system developed primarily for the purpose of >> making it harder for other operating systems to be used, and to boost pc >> sales. The attack surface it exposes allows undetectable root kits to >> be installed, or machines to be easily bricked just by deleting the >> efivars from the nvram. > > Harsh ... but fair ... Very fair - and perhaps increasingly relevant UEFI, imho, was originally promoted by M$ to SCREW the Linux/Unix world. We worked AROUND it quickly of course, but it WAS intended as a knife to the heart.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-27 16:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vs3s1o$f3mc$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #66667 |
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > UEFI, imho, was originally promoted by M$ to SCREW > the Linux/Unix world. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but is tehre actual evidence about this? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-23 05:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n62cnQZS2qClRkL6nZ2dnZfqn_QAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #66545 |
On 3/22/25 5:35 PM, Anssi Saari wrote: > Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes: > >> Dual Boot has always an unstable, fragile PITA. > > I've usually had two or more OSes on my main PC, since from around 1995 > or so. Hasn't been unstable, fragile or PITA. Virtualization isn't a > solution for my current use case of having Windows for games, Arch Linux > for seeing how new Linux stuff runs and looks like on my HW and Debian > for everything else. Agree. I've had as many as six bootable images at various times. NO probs with Grub.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-23 07:55 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <67df31ba@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #66538 |
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: > rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >>On Sat, 22 Mar 2025 15:26:55 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> >>> At home, many people boot multiple operating systems from the same disk; >>> UEFI has made this easier. >> >>Dual boot worked find for years before UEFI. When MS went to secure boot >>in Windows 8 it became a major PITA to dual boot before the Linux distros >>caught up. > > Dual Boot has always an unstable, fragile PITA. The only thing that made it unstable for me was when distros switched to Grub 2. So I started throwing that away in favour of SysLinux/ExtLinux and things have been easy again. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-23 08:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vrod7d$3iiq2$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #66547 |
not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote: >Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote: >> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >>>On Sat, 22 Mar 2025 15:26:55 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> >>>> At home, many people boot multiple operating systems from the same disk; >>>> UEFI has made this easier. >>> >>>Dual boot worked find for years before UEFI. When MS went to secure boot >>>in Windows 8 it became a major PITA to dual boot before the Linux distros >>>caught up. >> >> Dual Boot has always an unstable, fragile PITA. > >The only thing that made it unstable for me was when distros >switched to Grub 2. So I started throwing that away in favour of >SysLinux/ExtLinux and things have been easy again. I consider that an exceptionally bad idea and I am not going to engage in this discussion today. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web