> Once upon a time, Alessandro Baggi <alessandro.ba...@gmail.com> said: >> you are right but is not UEFI a standard and it shouldn't work the >> same on several vendors? I ask this because this patch broken all my >> uefi workstations. > > The great thing about standards is there's so many to choose from! Also > relevant: https://xkcd.com/927/ > > UEFI has gone through a number of revisions over the years, and has > optional bits like Secure Boot (which itself has gone through > revisions). Almost any set of standards has undefined corners where > vendors interpret things differently. Vendors also have bugs in weird > places sometimes. > > The firmware and boot loaders arguably are the least "exercised" parts > of a system - both change rarely and there are few implementations. > There's not many combinations, and they don't change a lot. > > I'm interested to read about the cause of this issue - something like > this can be a lesson on "hmm, hadn't thought of that before" type things > to watch for in other areas.
If you ask me I think the real root of the problem is that the UEFI/Secure Boot developers didn't know KISS - or they forgot about it. Once such a beast is born you can not handle it correctly no matter how much you try. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
