![]() It is certainly not true that UEFI brings only disadvantages and no advantages. They want good profits and poorly performing products equals poorer profits. It is not true that Big Corporations are using this maliciously or have MORE control over you or your machine - rather it allows them more control over the products that they offer. It is true that booting from a large drive is better with UEFI and it is also true that you can find alternatives- though they will not work so well. It is true that using UEFI can give many advantages if you are duel-booting with Windows. No big deal, but it neither helps nor hinders, usually. Selecting the right firmware helps them and helps you. It DOES allow some control to Big Corporations but not in any way that is harmful. So, while there is a kernel of truth (See wut ah did thar?) to what our paranoid friend was saying, over-all it is misguided and over-reactive. The chance of breakage are still slim and a reboot usually resolves the issue. You really are better off with a smarter bootloader than a static one, even if the smarter bootloader has more options for breakage. It can select the wrong service or firmware at boot that a BIOS boot would not have made such a mistake. But you can enjoy the fuel savings all the way to the bank. Yes, replacing MPFI components is more work and more technical on a car. But the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, generally. It's part of the electrical system as well as tied into the car computer whereas the carb is strictly mechanical. Just like the Carb or MPFI example above: An MPFI system has other parts that can break that the carb does not. UEFI is faster, more organized and selective.ĭoes it have disadvantages? Yes. But I am not in denial that MPFI is a smarter, more fuel efficient method of fuel delivery. Needless to say, I love and support our old carbureted engines. This is akin to using Multiport Fuel Injection or a carburetor. However, paranoia remains paranoia.ĭoes UEFI bring advantages? Yes. On occasion, it can even be entertaining. Now, I fully support the right of the paranoid to get on the internet, pound their fists on the table and declare, "They are turning the frogs is a useful function in society. By chopping that kind of logic, big corporations are in control if you use a computer.At.All. I disagree with the fella saying Big Corporations are taking control of your computer if you use UEFI. These are things I read prior to posting: (FYI I read several, at least from 15 different sites. JeffK969 wrote:Just to explain where the confusion comes in. So, does it really make a difference? Is one really better than the other updating the firmware. I want a good operating system, with all the firmware updates without having to go through the hassle of trying to flash the BIOS myself. Then I come across a good article, but no mention about if either is better at updating the firmware. ![]() And who can one really trust aside for Swarf & Aravi? These are from people I don't know, and could be sane or insane. You're basically giving away control of your own computer to corporations. UEFI brings a heck of a lot of disadvantages with it and no advantages. And you can always find a solution for the latter. Which, in most cases, means no firmware upgrades on Linux, at all".- But just before on the same post I read this-> " There is no reason to use UEFI except if you want to boot Windows or if you want to boot from a partition more than 2 TiB is size. ![]() No UEFI means firmware upgrades via LVFS/ fwupd / fwupdmgr will not work. For example, the "automatic" firmware upgrade, that is integrated in the Gnome software manager requires UEFI. If you want to upgrade the firmware of your Linux computer, UEFI is required in many cases. "There is at least one good reason to install Linux on UEFI. After format it becomes 1.3GB insted of 14.4GB in normal case.Just to explain where the confusion comes in. Also windows 10 is not able to read the data after flashing by etcher. It only shows windows 10 and ubuntu 16.04 that is previously installed in my device. Secondly in case of etcher my usb is not even detected. But does linux lite requires some different formats? I have booted several versions of ubuntu, debian and windows this way successfully. I tried several times also tried re-downloading the iso but the situation is same. Nothing happens and it goes directly to bios menu. But when from the bootloader list of my device I selected the usb stick. In case of rufus and unetbootin the usb is successfully booted like my experience of installing ubuntu and windows several times previously. I tried rufus, unetbootin and etcher(as suggested in the website). After that I flashed it to adata 16GB usb stick. I have the latest linux lite 4.4 iso dowloaded from the official website.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |