Re: UEFI question

From	crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups	alt.os.linux
Subject	Re: UEFI question
Date	2016-01-02 01:53 -0700
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<n6830m$6c3$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(7 earlier) <op.yaigqsnza3w0dxdave@hodgins.homeip.net> <n63tb2$pht$2@dont-email.me> <slrnn8b0v3.21a.BitTwister@wb.home.test> <n644hn$d4p$1@saria.nerim.net> <op.yak3i6vba3w0dxdave@hodgins.homeip.net>

Show all headers | View raw

David W. Hodgins wrote:

> On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 15:52:07 -0500, Pascal Hambourg
> <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote:
> 
>> Bit Twister a écrit :
>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:51:44 -0700, crankypuss wrote:
>>>> David W. Hodgins wrote:
>>>>> Oops. Using gpt does require uefi. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Now I'm really confused.  I remember BitTwister saying that he had
>>>> moved to GPT some time ago and never looked back, and you're
>>>> implying that in order to do that he had to upgrade all his systems
>>>> to EFI firmware?
>>>
>>> Hodgins implied no such thing.
>>
>> Then how do you understand his "Using gpt does require uefi" ?
> 
> I was referring to a gpt partition table, not a hybrid table that has
> both the gpt entries and the mbr code/table.

I'm not up-to-snuff on this stuff, but it seems like there is always a 
MBR, even with a pure GPT disklabel.

And by the way, what kind of gonzo-bozos came up with new meanings for 
the word "label", probably some of them programmer types don't speek gud 
inglish or sumpin. <g>

> With a hybrid table, the drive can be used to boot on either bios or
> uefi firmware. With a non-hybrid gpt table, uefi is required.
> 
> Note that when using bios firmware, the 2TB limit still applies.

I keep hearing all this stuff about how important the 2T limit is, but 
I'm not sure what to do with the 256G this laptop has.  I guess a lot of 
people have bunches of videos and music, not sure how else you could 
ever need a 2T drive unless you're running a server, and even then it 
seems like you'd want to run some kind of RAID using many less costly 
drives so the ones that go bad can be swapped out without RAIDing the 
cookie jar.

It is kind of comforting that larger faster storage devices are getting 
cheaper and cheaper.  In the extrapolated case "free inexhaustible" 
storage is going to flip some algorithms upside down.

-- 
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
  [Sun Nov 22: "Total Portability is not binary"]

Thread

UEFI question crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-30 05:11 -0700
  Re: UEFI question Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2015-12-30 13:35 +0100
    Re: UEFI question crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-30 06:03 -0700
      Re: UEFI question Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-12-30 13:48 +0000
        Re: UEFI question crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-30 14:10 -0700
          Re: UEFI question "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2015-12-30 16:26 -0500
            Re: UEFI question Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2015-12-31 10:21 +0100
              Re: UEFI question "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2015-12-31 08:50 -0500
                Re: UEFI question Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2015-12-31 16:19 +0100
                Re: UEFI question crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-31 11:51 -0700
                Re: UEFI question Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-12-31 19:34 +0000
                Re: UEFI question Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2015-12-31 21:52 +0100
                Re: UEFI question "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2016-01-01 18:58 -0500
                Re: UEFI question Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-01-02 02:19 +0100
                Re: UEFI question blind Pete <0123peter@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 16:30 +1100
                Re: UEFI question Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-01-03 11:12 +0100
                Re: UEFI question Eef Hartman <E.J.M.Hartman@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 12:44 +0000
                Re: UEFI question Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-01-03 15:16 +0100
                Re: UEFI question blind Pete <0123peter@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 23:12 +1100
                Re: UEFI question Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-01-03 15:22 +0100
                Re: UEFI question crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-02 01:53 -0700
                Re: UEFI question Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-01-02 12:08 +0100
                Re: UEFI question crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-02 10:47 -0700
            Re: UEFI question crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-31 02:37 -0700
          Re: UEFI question Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2015-12-30 22:18 +0000
      Re: UEFI question Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2015-12-31 10:16 +0100
        Re: UEFI question crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-12-31 02:46 -0700
      Re: UEFI question blind Pete <0123peter@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 21:20 +1100
        Re: UEFI question crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-01 05:08 -0700
          Re: UEFI question Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-01-01 21:51 +0100
            Re: UEFI question crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-01 15:17 -0700
              Re: UEFI question Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-01-01 23:06 +0000
                Re: UEFI question crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-02 02:16 -0700
                Re: UEFI question Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-01-02 10:04 +0000
                Re: UEFI question crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-02 03:39 -0700
                Re: UEFI question blind Pete <0123peter@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 15:20 +1100
          Re: UEFI question blind Pete <0123peter@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 15:14 +1100

csiph-web