On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:53 PM, Kyle Marek <pspps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've noticed that Windows 10 does MBR installs on BIOS, as well. I've > always found that interesting because I have also found several laptops > (I think most of them were HP) where the OEM installed a BIOS bootloader > in addition to the EFI bootloader. My guess is that these OEMs see a > similar value in being able to boot both BIOS and EFI. I've seen gdisk -l output from such systems. I've never interacted with one. The most common OEM "installer" is just an imager. Basically it's dd'ing an image, so it it includes all the partitioning and contents of those partitions, it's not like the Microsoft installer. It might be that the manufacturer used the same image on a couple of different SKUs where the only difference was whether they had legacy BIOS enabled. I don't suppose they ever intended to have a flip from BIOS to UEFI in the field, but maybe? >> Are you gonna own the feature? :-) Maybe Colin Walters finds it >> compelling enough to be co-owner? > > Can I? I'm a bit new to Fedora development (I don't have a FAS account, > yet). Sure. Jump into the deep end. Shout if you need help. Quick like a bunny though if you want to get it in for Fedora 29. But definitely start a new separate devel@ thread. This one's approaching a hijacking. In the new thread you can point out the two pronged approach, what liabilities there are, solicit liabilities you haven't thought of. You could cull bugzilla for anaconda and grub2 bugs related to GPT and not booting for hardware models that were affected, and include that list of models in the kickoff email. Maybe that gets the attention of would be testers, but also at least puts people still using such hardware some notice (even in future searches) should they do a clean install, what problems they might run into. For testing, it's been six years so it's plausible there have been firmware updates fixing some or even most of these problems. Perhaps other GRUB upstream work arounds were discovered. One big con is the unknown factor, and how to get broad testing coverage. A contrary position to that is, we didn't know about any problems six years ago when the switch was flipped, and then we ran into the problem. So how is it any worse of an idea now than it was originally? The change is still valid as long as a bunch of people aren't negatively impacted. Also, it's not change for the sake of change, it has a followup feature that does incrementally simplify the layout and makes it a bit more flexible at pretty much no cost. > However, I do care about correcting things like this. I've found > Fedora's way of doing boot loader configuration a little strange and > confusing compared to other distros. If Fedora is open to contribution > by new members, I would be happy to contribute. Yes it is, but contribution in the context of actually changing inertia means producing the changes: patches, commits, documentation, tests, bug reports. Things that get much less attention are mere feature requests without committing resources to producing a tangible result. And also, this applies to the current spec convo https://xkcd.com/927/ -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/H5YKG4ZF65IYWR3XVGFAJLHSIAW75GDR/
