On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 8:04 AM Vít Ondruch <vondr...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > Dne 05. 04. 22 v 17:08 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:54 AM Ben Cotton <bcot...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateLegacyBIOS > >> > >> == Summary == > >> Make UEFI a hardware requirement for new Fedora installations on > >> platforms that support it (x86_64). Legacy BIOS support is not > >> removed, but new non-UEFI installation is not supported on those > >> platforms. This is a first step toward eventually removing legacy > >> BIOS support entirely. > >> > >> == Owner == > >> * Name: [[User:rharwood| Robbie Harwood]], [[User:jkonecny| Jiří > >> Konečný]], [[User:bcl| Brian C. Lane]] > >> * Email: rharw...@redhat.com > >> > >> > >> == Detailed Description == > >> UEFI is defined by a versioned standard that can be tested and > >> certified against. By contrast, every legacy BIOS is unique. Legacy > >> BIOS is widely considered deprecated (Intel, AMD, Microsoft, Apple) > >> and on its way out. As it ages, maintainability has decreased, and > >> the status quo of maintaining both stacks in perpetuity is not viable > >> for those currently doing that work. > >> > >> It is inevitable that legacy BIOS will be removed in a future release. > >> To ease this transition as best we can, there will be a period (of at > >> least one Fedora release) where it will be possible to boot using the > >> legacy BIOS codepaths, but new installations will not be possible. > >> While it would be easier for us to cut support off today, our hope is > >> that this compromise position will make for a smoother transition. > >> Additional support with issues during the transition would be > >> appreciated. > >> > >> While this will eventually reduce workload for boot/installation > >> components (grub2 reduces surface area, syslinux goes away entirely, > >> anaconda reduces surface area), the reduction in support burden > >> extends much further into the stack - for instance, VESA support can > >> be removed from the distro. > >> > >> Fedora already requires a 2GHz dual core CPU at minimum (and therefore > >> mandates that machines must have been made after 2006). Like the > >> already accepted Fedora 37 change to retire ARMv7 support, the > >> hardware targeted tends to be rather underpowered by today’s > >> standards, and the world has moved on from it. Intel stopped shipping > >> the last vestiges of BIOS support in 2020 (as have other vendors, and > >> Apple and Microsoft), so this is clearly the way things are heading - > >> and therefore aligns with Fedora’s “First” objective. > >> > >> == Feedback == > >> Dropping legacy BIOS was previously discussed (but not proposed) in 2020: > >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel%40lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/QBANCA2UAJ5ZSMDVVARLIYAJE66TYTCD/ > >> > >> Important, relevant points from that thread (yes, I reread the entire > >> thread) that have informed this change: > >> > >> * Some machines are BIOS-only. This change does not prevent their use > >> yet, but they are effectively deprecated. grub2 (our default > >> bootloader) is already capable of both BIOS and UEFI booting. > >> * Drawing a clear year cutoff, let alone a detailed list of hardware > >> this change affects, is basically impossible. This is unfortunate but > >> unlikely to ever change. > >> * There is no migration story from Legacy BIOS to UEFI - > >> repartitioning effectively mandates a reinstall. As a result, we > >> don’t drop support for existing Legacy BIOS systems yet, just new > >> installations. > >> * There is no way to deprecate hardware without causing some amount of > >> friction. > >> * While at the time AWS did not support UEFI booting, that is no > >> longer the case and they support UEFI today. > >> > >> == Benefit to Fedora == > >> UEFI is required for many desirable features, including applying > >> firmware updates (fwupd) and supporting SecureBoot. As a standalone > >> change, it reduces support burden on everything involved in installing > >> Fedora, since there becomes only one way to do it per platform. > >> Finally, it simplifies our install/live media, since it too only has > >> to boot one way per arch. Freedom Friends Features First - this is > >> that last one. > >> > >> == Scope == > >> * Proposal owners: > >> ** bootloaders: No change (existing Legacy BIOS installations still > >> supported). > >> ** anaconda: No change (there could be only optional cleanups in the > >> code). However, it needs to be verified. > >> ** Lorax: Code has already been written: > >> https://github.com/weldr/lorax/pull/1205 > >> > > This pull request primarily drops legacy BIOS support by dropping > > syslinux/isolinux. We don't necessarily have to drop legacy BIOS > > support there if we reuse GRUB there too. Other distributions > > (openSUSE and Mageia, notably) both use GRUB for both BIOS and UEFI on > > live media. > > > >> * Other developers: > >> ** libvirt: UEFI works today, but is not the default. UEFI-only > >> installation is needed for Windows 11, and per conversations, libvirt > >> is prepared for this change. > >> ** Virtualbox: UEFI Fedora installs are working and per virtualbox > >> team, UEFI will be/is the default in 7.0+. > >> ** The Hardware Overview page should be updated to mention the UEFI > >> requirement: > >> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora/rawhide/release-notes/welcome/Hardware_Overview/ > >> > >> * Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10738 #Releng > >> issue 10738] > >> > >> * Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this Change) > >> > >> * Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change) > >> > >> * Alignment with Objectives: N/A > >> > >> == Upgrade/compatibility impact == > >> Systems currently using Legacy BIOS for booting on x86_64 will > >> continue to do so. > >> > >> However, this modifies the baseline Fedora requirements and some > >> hardware will no longer be supported for new installations. > >> > >> == How To Test == > >> UEFI installation has been supported for quite a while already, so > >> additional testing there should not be required. > >> > >> == User Experience == > >> Installs will continue to work on UEFI, and will not work on Legacy > >> BIOS. Our install media is already UEFI-capable. > >> > >> == Dependencies == > >> None > >> > >> == Contingency Plan == > >> Leave things as they are. Code continues to rot. Community > >> assistance is required to continue the status quo. Current owners > >> plan to orphan some packages regardless of whether the proposal is > >> accepted. > >> > >> Another fallback option could be, if a Legacy BIOS SIG organizes, to > >> donate the relevant packages there and provide some initial mentoring. > >> Longer term, packages that cannot be wholly donated could be split, > >> though it is unclear whether the synchronization thereby required > >> would reduce the work for anyone. > >> > >> * Contingency mechanism: Delay until next release. > >> * Contingency deadline: Beta freeze > >> * Blocks release? No > >> > >> == Documentation == > >> See release notes. > >> > >> == Release Notes == > >> Fedora 37 marks legacy BIOS installation as deprecated on x86_64 in > >> favor of UEFI. While systems already using Legacy BIOS to boot are > >> still supported, new legacy BIOS installations on these architectures > >> are no longer possible. Legacy BIOS support will be removed entirely > >> in a future Fedora. > >> > >> (Additionally, the Hardware Overview page should be updated to mention > >> the UEFI requirement.) > >> > > While I'm sympathetic to this Change, I think this is way too early to > > do across the board. UEFI came onto the scene in the PC space in > > 2011~2012 with Windows 8, and even to this day, there are sufficiently > > buggy hardware platforms that Linux does not boot in UEFI mode: > > https://twitter.com/VKCsh/status/1511132132885815307 > > > > I even have one such machine, an HP desktop machine that came with > > Windows 8. My current desktop PC has problems booting Linux UEFI as > > well, though I've done "clever" things to work around that. I don't > > expect most users to be able to deal with that. Server platforms were > > *worse* as they were slower to offer UEFI. The first time I was able > > to get a server with UEFI was in 2014. > > > Maybe I don't correctly understand the "Legacy BIOS support is not > removed, but new non-UEFI installation is not supported on those > platforms." quoted from the the change description, but if you have your > system installed, it should keep working. You just keep updating. IOW as > long as you don't reinstall the system, you are fine and you don't have > to be concerned. > > If you really have a need to reinstall such machine, you'll take the F36 > image and upgrade to F37+ and you should still be good. >
This is not a deprecation change, this is effectively a removal change. By removing the packages and the tooling support for legacy BIOS, it makes several scenarios (including recovery) harder. Moreover, it puts the burden on people to figure out if their hardware can boot and install Fedora when we clearly haven't reached a critical mass yet for doing so, like we did when we finally removed the i686 kernel build. I'm personally a fan of using UEFI instead of BIOS. Heck, I implemented support for UEFI in Fedora's cloud images when other people told me it was not possible, while preserving BIOS support. I've been trying to figure out the roadmap for BIOS deprecation for a year now, and the reason *I* didn't propose a Change yet is because I have not sufficiently determined that it was reasonable to do so. I'm particularly upset about this Change because it feels like a hostage change where the proposal owners blithely ignore what we're saying as unimportant or irrelevant and abuse our principles to do things that are clearly against what the community feels is right. I have been trying in the background for years to try to figure out solutions for usability problems in Fedora Linux on UEFI because *I want our experience to be good there*. But it's extremely hard when: 1. Bugs and feature requests around UEFI related features are ignored 2. The packages are locked down so there is no way for the community to help 3. At various times, people have explicitly said "patches NOT welcome" I'm angry because we're doing this without any real thought around the consequences for the user experience, and we should not do that as a premier Linux distribution. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
