> On 10/1/2015 6:18 AM, Patrick Masotta via Syslinux wrote: > > > -Gene<<< > > Considering any editing/buffering benefits are only marginal (AFAIK) there are not benefits with the current approach.On the other hand the list of potential problems includes: > > 1) We cannot use the ubiquitous EFI PXEbc protocol forcing us to rely on the (not always present) EFI Binding Services. > > Best,Patrick > > Speaking utterly ignorantly here... could this switch help with the > issues we see with HP systems? The load-and-hang many of them do with > syslinux.efi as discussed here? E.g., maybe they implement this > protocol a little better...? > -AlanApologies for this slight off-topic. Who "they" would be? Let's not fool ourselves. HP _might_ solve possible issues regarding their firmware when a (current) MS OS / bootloader shows some problem for users of newish HP hardware. Let me emphasize: HP will _only_ consider publishing a firmware update under certain specific conditions, and any issue related (even loosely) with using syslinux.efi in HP hardware is not one of such circumstances. Any non-MS bootloader will probably have "disadvantages" regarding the compatibility between HP's firmware and the bootloader, simply because HP does not test any other bootloader. Back to the main topic now. Regards, Ady.> > _______________________________________________ > Syslinux mailing list > Submissions to Syslinux at zytor.com > Unsubscribe or set options at: > http://www.zytor.com/mailman/listinfo/syslinux >
>>>> On 10/1/2015 6:18 AM, Patrick Masotta via Syslinux wrote: > > > -Gene<<< > > Considering any editing/buffering benefits are only marginal (AFAIK) there are not benefits with the current approach.On the other hand the list of potential problems includes: > > 1) We cannot use the ubiquitous EFI PXEbc protocol forcing us to rely on the (not always present) EFI Binding Services. > > Best,Patrick > > Speaking utterly ignorantly here... could this switch help with the > issues we see with HP systems?? The load-and-hang many of them do with > syslinux.efi as discussed here?? E.g., maybe they implement this > protocol a little better...? > -AlanApologies for this slight off-topic. Who "they" would be? Let's not fool ourselves. HP _might_ solve possible issues regarding their firmware when a (current) MS OS / bootloader shows some problem for users of newish HP hardware. Let me emphasize: HP will _only_ consider publishing a firmware update under certain specific conditions, and any issue related (even loosely) with using syslinux.efi in HP hardware is not one of such circumstances. Any non-MS bootloader will probably have "disadvantages" regarding the compatibility between HP's firmware and the bootloader, simply because HP does not test any other bootloader. Back to the main topic now. Regards, Ady. <<< I agree with you.Because of the reasons you just mentioned I have said not long ago that we should stick as much as we can to bootmgfw.efi (MS EFI Bootmanager) in the way of doing things under EFI. This simple strategywill save us countless hours of painful debugging many times just to discover that X or Y FW is not really compliant to the EFI standard or it is just buggy in some area that bootmgfw.efi does not use. Best,Patrick
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 08:02:32PM +0000, Patrick Masotta via Syslinux wrote:> On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 06:02:51PM +0300, Ady via Syslinux wrote: > > > > Apologies for this slight off-topic.No, on-topic. Syslinux is about booting Linux on (y)our hardware.> > Who "they" would be? > > > > Let's not fool ourselves. HP _might_ solve possible issues regarding > > their firmware when a (current) MS OS / bootloader shows some problem > > for users of newish HP hardware. Let me emphasize: HP will _only_ > > consider publishing a firmware update under certain specific > > conditions, and any issue related (even loosely) with using > > syslinux.efi in HP hardware is not one of such circumstances. > > > > Any non-MS bootloader will probably have "disadvantages" regarding the > > compatibility between HP's firmware and the bootloader, simply because > > HP does not test any other bootloader. > > > > I agree with you.Because of the reasons you just mentioned I have said > not long ago that we should stick as much as we can to bootmgfw.efi > (MS EFI Bootmanager) in the way of doing things under EFI. This simple > strategywill save us countless hours of painful debugging many times > just to discover that X or Y FW is not really compliant to the EFI > standard or it is just buggy in some area that bootmgfw.efi does > not use.It is up to us to talk with hardware vendors that their bootROM could be better. Being better implemented or being better documented. Impersonating another bootloader, will keep us impersonating that bootloader. With bad side-effect that hardware vendor will neglect other bootloaders. Thing I want to say is that the days of a powerfull Microsoft are over, these are the days of collaboration. Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven