JeffK969 wrote:Just to explain where the confusion comes in. These are things I read prior to posting: (FYI I read several, at least from 15 different sites. This is just an example.)
"There is at least one good reason to install Linux on UEFI. If you want to upgrade the firmware of your Linux computer, UEFI is required in many cases. For example, the "automatic" firmware upgrade, that is integrated in the Gnome software manager requires UEFI. No UEFI means firmware upgrades via LVFS/ fwupd / fwupdmgr will not work. 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. And you can always find a solution for the latter. UEFI brings a heck of a lot of disadvantages with it and no advantages. Don't use it. You're basically giving away control of your own computer to corporations. Don't do that, that's a bad idea."
From this link -
https://askubuntu.com/questions/647303/ ... ed-and-why
I disagree with the fella saying Big Corporations are taking control of your computer if you use UEFI.
The statement makes no sense. By chopping that kind of logic, big corporations are in control if you use a computer.At.All.
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 g@y!"
This is a useful function in society. On occasion, it can even be entertaining. However, paranoia remains paranoia.
Does UEFI bring advantages? Yes. UEFI is essentially a Smarter Boot. This is akin to using Multiport Fuel Injection or a carburetor. Needless to say, I love and support our old carbureted engines. But I am not in denial that MPFI is a smarter, more fuel efficient method of fuel delivery.
UEFI is faster, more organized and selective.
Does it have disadvantages? Yes. Just like the Carb or MPFI example above: An MPFI system has other parts that can break that the carb does not. It's part of the electrical system as well as tied into the car computer whereas the carb is strictly mechanical. More things can go wrong. This is a disadvantage. The same applies for UEFI. But the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, generally. Yes, replacing MPFI components is more work and more technical on a car. But you can enjoy the fuel savings all the way to the bank. UEFI is no different. It can select the wrong service or firmware at boot that a BIOS boot would not have made such a mistake. However, BIOS boot can go faulty, too. You really are better off with a smarter bootloader than a static one, even if the smarter bootloader has more options for breakage. The chance of breakage are still slim and a reboot usually resolves the issue.
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. It DOES allow some control to Big Corporations but not in any way that is harmful. Selecting the right firmware helps them and helps you. A legacy or BIOS boot is more static. No big deal, but it neither helps nor hinders, usually.
It is true that using UEFI can give many advantages if you are duel-booting with Windows. (Chuckle, I did it again).
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 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. They want good profits and poorly performing products equals poorer profits. This does not harm you.
It is certainly not true that UEFI brings only disadvantages and no advantages. That statement is hogwash.
OK so the other guy:
He suggested that it is a big disadvantage to use BIOS boot as UEFI is required and allows firmware upgrades. Like our other friend, he is over-stating his case. It just is not that big of a deal. yes, it is helpful to have UEFI, and yes, you Could call it "required" but it is only required in the sense of upgrading certain firmware - It's not like your computer will die without that upgrade. It will most likely function as it always did before the "upgrade" was offered. Using an Old Machine that you installed Linux on to save it from the trashcan, do you really think the hardware would qualify for all those "upgrades?" Nope. "Such and such hardware is REQUIRED in order to update such and such firmware." You aren't out anything at all.
No, "upgrade" does not always equate to "good." Upgrades MAY help with some things. But often, 'upgrades' are actually superfluous. Many upgrades people download and install automagically are actually ignored by the system as irrelevant, anyway. Most upgrades contain patches for screw ups and few contain a product developed from R&D making something better than it was before (though some do). Which means most upgrades don't mean much to the average person unless they had a bug that the "Upgrade" fixed. Those that improved something a little bit help society as a whole but most people won't notice the difference in most cases.
So, that is my long winded rant.
JeffK969 wrote: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... So, does it really make a difference? Is one really better than the other updating the firmware.
See, confusion....lol
I'd say go with UEFI if it works. If it is not working due to machine age, use Legacy. You notice that if you use Legacy on an old machine, somehow, the thing works. You still can use GIMP and FireFox and Nautilus and Thunar... The computer does not self destruct from clinical depression over being denied oh-so-much-needed-upgrades. The vast majority of upgrades/updates would not apply to the older machine and those that do apply- will still go through and work, regardless of how you boot.
