I have always used HP computers, then I got one with UEFI settings
instead of a legacy BIOS. I didn't think I would ever get Linux Mint installed on it. I finally did get it installed, but it was a pain.
I would like to try another brand of computer, like Asus, Lenovo, Acer
or some other brand.
Anyone know which brand is more compatible with a Linux operating
system?
I have always used HP computers, then I got one with UEFI settings
instead of a legacy BIOS. I didn't think I would ever get Linux Mint installed on it. I finally did get it installed, but it was a pain.
I would like to try another brand of computer, like Asus, Lenovo, Acer
or some other brand.
Anyone know which brand is more compatible with a Linux operating
system?
On 3/22/21 12:58 PM, Johnny wrote:
I have always used HP computers, then I got one with UEFI settings
instead of a legacy BIOS. I didn't think I would ever get Linux
Mint installed on it. I finally did get it installed, but it was a
pain.
I would like to try another brand of computer, like Asus, Lenovo,
Acer or some other brand.
Anyone know which brand is more compatible with a Linux operating
system?
I prefer Dell Latitudes, lightly used or refurbished.
Most computers will have UEFI these days but you can go into
the BIOS, see the manual for your model, and change to Legacy
or simply turn off Secure Boot, a Microsoft addition to the
problems of the world. The machines with Ryzen are not yet
too visible in the used/refurbished marketplace but even
a new one can have the pesky MS parts turned off. On
one model I installed to for a friend the disk was locked
which required at the time entering the Windows install and
using the Windows tool to alter the disk to make room for
Linux nearly 2 years ago now. Dell has at least one model
that comes with Ubuntu and you just have to go to their
site if that is of interest to order a new Linux computer.
bliss - “Nearly any fool can use a Linux computer. Many do.” After
all here I am...
Johnny wrote:
I have always used HP computers, then I got one with UEFI settings
instead of a legacy BIOS. I didn't think I would ever get Linux
Mint installed on it. I finally did get it installed, but it was a
pain.
I would like to try another brand of computer, like Asus, Lenovo,
Acer or some other brand.
Anyone know which brand is more compatible with a Linux operating
system?
Are you looking to set up dual boot or do you just want to run Linux
on it? I got my "main machine" new, three years ago from a local
shop. It is an AMD.
An SSD for the OS stuff (although I don't keep /var on it) and a
rotating disk for stuff like /home. It came without an OS installed
and I set it up with UEFI. The advantage of a decent "Generic PC" is
that the manufacturer won't have added anything weird and generic
which could cause Linux problems. Ryzens are old enough now that a
current distribution can handle them.
I have had problems with Nvidia graphics and tend to go for AMD.
The problem at the moment is that it is not a good time to be buying
a PC - they are pretty scarce on the ground and correspondingly
expensive.
It seems like a Dell Latitude is a laptop. I would rather have a
desktop tower, or small form factor computer. They are easier to work
on.
I have always used HP computers, then I got one with UEFI settings
instead of a legacy BIOS. I didn't think I would ever get Linux Mint installed on it. I finally did get it installed, but it was a pain.
I would like to try another brand of computer, like Asus, Lenovo, Acer
or some other brand.
Anyone know which brand is more compatible with a Linux operating
system?
Johnny wrote:
I have always used HP computers, then I got one with UEFI settings
instead of a legacy BIOS. I didn't think I would ever get Linux Mint
installed on it. I finally did get it installed, but it was a pain.
I would like to try another brand of computer, like Asus, Lenovo, Acer
or some other brand.
Anyone know which brand is more compatible with a Linux operating
system?
Are you looking to set up dual boot or do you just want to run Linux on
it? I got my "main machine" new, three years ago from a local shop. It
is an AMD.
An SSD for the OS stuff (although I don't keep /var on it) and a
rotating disk for stuff like /home.
It came without an OS installed and
I set it up with UEFI. The advantage of a decent "Generic PC" is that
the manufacturer won't have added anything weird and generic which could cause Linux problems. Ryzens are old enough now that a current
distribution can handle them.
I have had problems with Nvidia graphics and tend to go for AMD.
The problem at the moment is that it is not a good time to be buying a
PC - they are pretty scarce on the ground and correspondingly expensive.
I have always used HP computers, then I got one with UEFI settings
instead of a legacy BIOS. I didn't think I would ever get Linux Mint >installed on it. I finally did get it installed, but it was a pain.
I would like to try another brand of computer, like Asus, Lenovo, Acer
or some other brand.
Anyone know which brand is more compatible with a Linux operating
system?
Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> wrote:
I have always used HP computers, then I got one with UEFI settings
instead of a legacy BIOS. I didn't think I would ever get Linux Mint
installed on it. I finally did get it installed, but it was a pain.
I would like to try another brand of computer, like Asus, Lenovo, Acer
or some other brand.
Anyone know which brand is more compatible with a Linux operating
system?
Any decent and current Linux will run fine on UEFI.
I'd rather go with a more mainstream distribution such as Fedora,
Ubuntu or Debian than get a new computer for that.
UEFI is the
sensible way to go since we desperately need to let go of the BIOS
emulation after its 40th birthday.
That being said, I am a honorable member of the "church of thinkpad"
and would buy a used T- or X-Thinkpad in my targeted budget range. I
have always assembled my desktop machines myself and cannot comment on
the quality of Lenovo in that segment.
Greetings
Marc
UEFI is a complete waste of time and effort. It added nothing useful
that you couldn't do with traditional BIOSes, but made everything more complicated. In theory, it allowed for extensibility of different
pre-boot programs - in practice, there are a total of zero use-cases
for this. There is nothing that a UEFI BIOS can do that a
traditional BIOS cannot, and there is nothing that could not be done
better with a simple BIOS and a flash disk with a dedicated Linux
system for when you want something more complex (like settings with a
more advanced gui).
UEFI is a complete waste of time and effort. It added nothing useful
that you couldn't do with traditional BIOSes, but made everything more >complicated.
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
UEFI is a complete waste of time and effort. It added nothing useful
that you couldn't do with traditional BIOSes, but made everything more
complicated.
It has also removed a truckload of cruft that has been useless since
the mid-1980ies.
On 23.03.2021 at 11:13, David Brown scribbled:
UEFI is a complete waste of time and effort. It added nothing useful
that you couldn't do with traditional BIOSes, but made everything more
complicated. In theory, it allowed for extensibility of different
pre-boot programs - in practice, there are a total of zero use-cases
for this. There is nothing that a UEFI BIOS can do that a
traditional BIOS cannot, and there is nothing that could not be done
better with a simple BIOS and a flash disk with a dedicated Linux
system for when you want something more complex (like settings with a
more advanced gui).
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment, David. For one, the legacy
BIOS is the main reason why x86-64 processors still have (and need to
power up in) a "real mode", i.e. the 16-bit mode that the 8086/8088 processors ran in, with only 1 MiB of addressable memory (of which part
is reserved for hardware access), no privilege separation, no memory management unit, and all software having full access to all of the
hardware.
RISC machines — which do not have a real mode, and which were never designed to work with real-mode operating systems like CP/M or MS-DOS — have already long used an EFI. So while UEFI does have its flaws and
its corporately controlled committee overseeing the UEFI specification,
the legacy BIOS was an anachronism and really needed to go.
Now, that said, while I really see no use for a 32-bit UEFI on 64-bit hardware — what genius ever came up with that idea anyway? — a 64-bit UEFI running a 64-bit OS does offer things that a legacy BIOS cannot.
For one, it saves the boot loader and the kernel bootstrapping code from having to pull all kinds of tricks for storing information about the
hardware in a memory location that won't get zapped when the kernel
bootstrap code switches the processor from real mode to protected mode,
PAE mode and then long mode (in that order). If on the other hand the
system boots in UEFI mode, then the kernel can obtain all information
about the hardware directly from the firmware, because the UEFI runs in
the same 64-bit address space.
Another advantage — one that I personally have no use for, but many
other people do — is that a UEFI allows for booting multiple operating systems installed on the same drive, even if those operating systems
don't have a boot loader that can do this. The legacy BIOS cannot do
that, because it requires one partition to be marked with the boot
flag, and then loads that partition's boot sector into memory, and then passes control of the machine onto whatever code was in that boot
sector. The only caveat is that all operating systems on the same
drive have to be installed in either UEFI mode or in BIOS mode, but not
as a mix of both — such is possible if the operating systems are
installed on different drives, but not when they're on the same drive.
Of course, additions to the UEFI specification such as Secure Boot —
which should rather be called Restricted Boot, because that's what it
was really included for — are deplorable, as are hardware optimizations like Fast Boot for making Microsoft Windows perform better at
boot-up. If Microsoft Windows needs to be able to boot faster, then
that's on the Microsoft developers, and then that should not require any special modifications of how the hardware works. That's turning the
world upside down — which Microsoft has a long history of doing.
That all said, this computer here is a shop-built machine — the shop's
own "brand" if you will, and they're all sold without an OS installed —
and I've set it up to boot in UEFI mode, with both Secure Boot and Fast
Boot disabled. It runs Manjaro Stable, installed on a GPT-partitioned
SSD, and I've also added an older and slightly smaller HDD — also partitioned as GPT — for storing my backups. No proprietary stuff either — it's an MSI motherboard with onboard Intel 630 UHD graphics. And it works like a charm. ;)
On 23/03/2021 13:46, Marc Haber wrote:
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
UEFI is a complete waste of time and effort. It added nothing useful
that you couldn't do with traditional BIOSes, but made everything more
complicated.
It has also removed a truckload of cruft that has been useless since
the mid-1980ies.
Cruft that was once useful, but could later have been removed /without/ >adding a trainload of new UEFI cruft that has never been not used.
UEFI was created for one purpose, and one purpose only - it was invented
by Microsoft in order to make life difficult for anyone who wanted to
put something other than Windows on a computer. Everything else is just
an excuse with no real benefit to anyone.
There is nothing that a UEFI BIOS can do that a traditional BIOS
cannot,
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 11:13:48 +0100, David Brown wrote:
There is nothing that a UEFI BIOS can do that a traditional BIOS
cannot,
Yes it is. An UEFI BIOS is able to understand and modify contents on file systems on the computer.
This in combination with the feature to be able
to update the BIOS from software running in the computers operating
system makes things interesting in a bad way. This is the kind of
features that gives us persistent malware surviving reformatted and even repaced disks. The features are not only used by malware makers but has
also been used by vendors like Lenovo for bloatware:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150812/11395231925/lenovo-busted- stealthily-installing-crapware-via-bios-fresh-windows-installs.shtml
What did they call this? Secure boot?
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 10:07:10 -0400, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
UEFI was created for one purpose, and one purpose only - it was invented
by Microsoft in order to make life difficult for anyone who wanted to
put something other than Windows on a computer. Everything else is just
an excuse with no real benefit to anyone.
That's overlooking another key advantage of uefi. It is basically a mini
os that
the user has no control over that allows various government agencies to install
root kits that the user's os can not detect.
On 23/03/2021 18:19, David W. Hodgins wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 10:07:10 -0400, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
UEFI was created for one purpose, and one purpose only - it was invented >>> by Microsoft in order to make life difficult for anyone who wanted to
put something other than Windows on a computer. Everything else is just >>> an excuse with no real benefit to anyone.
That's overlooking another key advantage of uefi. It is basically a mini
os that
the user has no control over that allows various government agencies to
install
root kits that the user's os can not detect.
That is not something I see as particularly realistic. (There are other
ways to do that better, such as the Intel Management Engine.)
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 11:13:48 +0100, David Brown wrote:
There is nothing that a UEFI BIOS can do that a traditional BIOS
cannot,
Yes it is. An UEFI BIOS is able to understand and modify contents on file systems on the computer. This in combination with the feature to be able
to update the BIOS from software running in the computers operating
system makes things interesting in a bad way. This is the kind of
features that gives us persistent malware surviving reformatted and even repaced disks. The features are not only used by malware makers but has
also been used by vendors like Lenovo for bloatware:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150812/11395231925/lenovo-busted- stealthily-installing-crapware-via-bios-fresh-windows-installs.shtml
What did they call this? Secure boot?
regards Henrik
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 11:13:48 +0100, David Brown wrote:
There is nothing that a UEFI BIOS can do that a traditional BIOS
cannot,
Yes it is. An UEFI BIOS is able to understand and modify contents on
file systems on the computer. This in combination with the feature to
be able to update the BIOS from software running in the computers
operating system makes things interesting in a bad way. This is the
kind of features that gives us persistent malware surviving
reformatted and even repaced disks. The features are not only used by
malware makers but has also been used by vendors like Lenovo for
bloatware:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150812/11395231925/lenovo-busted- stealthily-installing-crapware-via-bios-fresh-windows-installs.shtml
What did they call this? Secure boot?
regards Henrik
What did they call this? Secure boot?
regards Henrik
Thanks. I won't be buying a Lenovo.
On 24/03/2021 12:49, Johnny wrote:
What did they call this? Secure boot?
regards Henrik
Thanks. I won't be buying a Lenovo.
That was 2015, and Lenovo got rightly scolded.
In 2021, crapware is free with Windows 10. You won't be running that.
No, don't rule out Lenovo. They probably have the most Linux friendly
kit out there, laptops and desktops, particularly in the second-hand ex-business (not consumer line) business.
https://itsfoss.com/lenovo-linux-certified/
Whatever you are looking at (Dell/HP/Lenovo), try and find a hardware-maintenance manual for the product, an online community of
upgraders for the product (maybe also linux users), youtube channels,
and availability of spares and goodies on eBay.
However, if you are into playing computer games, then go elsewhere. ex-Business line products won't have either the graphics or power
supply support unless you bastardize a server or workstation machine.
If you're worried about horrible things happening on your /boot/efi filesystem, may I suggest https://linuxconfig.org/intrusion-detection-systems-using-tripwire-on-linux
instead of a legacy BIOS. I didn't think I would ever get Linux Mint >installed on it. I finally did get it installed, but it was a pain.
I would like to try another brand of computer, like Asus, Lenovo, Acer
or some other brand.
Almost any computer is fine with Mint - UEFI or not. If you are using
UEFI and starting with a blank disk, you need to make you have the small
UEFI partition at the start of the disk, but that's all there is to it.
In article <20210322145810.4efb70c6@jspc>, Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> wrote:
I have always used HP computers, then I got one with UEFI settings
instead of a legacy BIOS. I didn't think I would ever get Linux Mint
installed on it. I finally did get it installed, but it was a pain.
I would like to try another brand of computer, like Asus, Lenovo, Acer
or some other brand.
What's wrong with EFI? It is different from working with an older
BIOS-based system, but once you're only slightly familiar with it, it seems easier to deal with. I've installed Gentoo Linux on EFI systems ranging
from a Dell PowerEdge R7515 on down to a Rock Pi X without any trouble to speak of.
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
On 23/03/2021 20:40, Henrik Carlqvist wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 11:13:48 +0100, David Brown wrote:
There is nothing that a UEFI BIOS can do that a traditional BIOS
cannot,
Yes it is. An UEFI BIOS is able to understand and modify contents on
file systems on the computer.
First, let me repeat - there is nothing that the UEFI BIOS can do that another BIOS cannot. There is nothing hindering a non-UEFI BIOS being
able to access files.
A Coreboot BIOS, for example, has as much of a
Linux system as you choose to compile into it. It is not UEFI - it does
not provide the UEFI-specified services, or need the UEFI partition.
Secondly, a UEFI BIOS cannot access files except on a very simplistic
and limited filesystem (fat32). It can't work with files on NTFS, ext4, btrfs, raid, or anything else.
Traditional BIOSes have been able to block writes to boot sectors
(previous to that, boot sector viruses were "popular". The only virus I
have ever had on a computer was a boot sector virus).
On most systems, I usually keep /boot separate from the rest of the filesystem. It's a perfect candidate for merging with the EFI system partition. Kernel images will go in its root, while the bootloader will
go in its EFI directory.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 19:02:29 |
| Calls: | 6,646 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,190 |
| Messages: | 5,327,305 |