On Jun 28, 2012, at 8:52 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 05:55:09PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > >> The behavior I care about, is results. Swap hard drives, even dual >> boot, between two Apple computers, and they still boot. Lenovo example >> in this thread, does not boot in the same case. These are not >> identical behaviors. > > Yes, because HFS+ lets you put a pointer to a bootloader in the > superblock and FAT doesn't. If you don't have a suggestion for how to > make this work better with FAT then I don't think this thread is useful. > Serialising nvram contents isn't an especially good suggestion.
You and Peter may be desensitized to shitty computer behavior, and specs. But consider that Kamil's sequence would not have failed to boot on legacy BIOS+MBR hardware either. I find it surprising that a 2200 page spec, and the efforts of the UEFI Forum result in such spectacular failure, in a common and unremarkable situation. It seems exceptionally regressive. Curious, how are manufacturer's using bulk imaged disks, separate from the computers they will be installed in, and yet the computers still manage to UEFI boot? I can't believe manufacturers would give up bulk imaging capability, or have someone type commands into each machine's NVRAM. Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
