this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
1017 points (97.7% liked)
linuxmemes
21088 readers
1775 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Can't related to be honest, and "I" am using UEFI long enough.
So what?!
And I've seen many people having broken boot loader and were using MBR. And there might be many people having boot loader problems with UEFI too (I'd expect less actually, but I don't have any numbers, and I guess nor does anybody else around here!).
I have never broken MBR boot while dual booting Windows and Linux in over 10 years. Not if Windows updates, not if Linux updates, not ever.
On the other hand, every 3rd or 4th meme on r/linuxmemes is about borked UEFI GRUB bootloaders, mainly by Windows when updating on dual boot setups.
What can I say, numbers don't lie 🤷.
Even if that's the case, that's a Windows bug and has nothing to do with UEFI.
Although, I'm pretty sure if Windows touched boot loader in an MBR setup, it surely would remove grub completely. In UEFI, it can just don't touch Grub's stuff easily; if it doesn't then that's its problem.
MBR simplicity is a lie! It is simple itself, but boot loaders are complex: Grub effectively has 3 separate stages (1, 1.5 & 2) to just run itself...
Even if that's the case, that's a Windows bug and has nothing to do with UEFI.
Absolutely, no doubt there.
But it's not a bug, it's a feature in their mind. They don't consider that a user might want or have the need to dual boot, "we have WSL for that". So, no attempt will be made to fix this "bug".
Plus UEFI can do all sorts of spying, since the firmware actually knows what you're booting, and thus, I generally tend to avoid UEFI installs. Sure, sometimes there is no choice (no CSM in firmware), but hey, at least I tried 🤷.
Although, I'm pretty sure if Windows touched boot loader in an MBR setup, it surely would remove grub completely.
Not completely, but remove the MBR magic, yes.
But it doesn't do that. Why mess with something that can render the OS completely unbootable... I presume that's their POV... plus, there is nothing really to do in MBR regarding the magic, things rarely get updated regarding that (I still haven't seen any KBs regarding MBR) and they pretty much have given up on that boot method (which doesn't mean it's not present in the installer and the OS for compatibility reasons in mixed scenarios - GPT partitions, but the disk still holds the MBR magic, just in case the firmware somehow gets reset and CSM is the default boot method, not UEFI), so... yeah, they don't give much attention to it. It's just there and that's all. Hence why they don't actually check whether their MBR magic is present on the disk or not.
In UEFI, it can just don't touch Grub's stuff easily; if it doesn't then that's its problem.
Actually, it's my (our) problem, since they don't see the need to dual boot and they don't treat this as a bug. I'm left to deal with the dual boot UEFI peoblem. So, in order to ensure my dual boot setup always works, I don't use UEFI boot, I use MBR boot 🤷.
MBR simplicity is a lie! It is simple itself, but boot loaders are complex: Grub effectively has 3 separate stages (1, 1.5 & 2) to just run itself...
No doubt there, but it's the MBR magic that starts the chain. It is that, and only that part, which Windows needs (and GRUB as well) to start booting the rest of the bootloader and everything else. It never checks if that is present or OK, because the assumption is, if it can boot, it surely must work as expected, so it never does that check. Defender doesn't even scan MBR any more (older versions in Win7 and Vista did, but newer ones don't), so everything just works with dual boot and MBR boot 🤷.
No need to fix it, the bootloader is safely installed on a write-protected floppy disk
I just killed my desktop environment but the bootloader works.
That is good news actually.