[gentoo-user] EFI-based bootloader for BIOS-based computers (?)

[gentoo-user] EFI-based bootloader for BIOS-based computers (?)

[walt]

I just spotted that phrase in the sourceforge newsletter:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/cloverefiboot/

and it seems to me like an oxymoron.  If that phrase makes
logical sense then my definitions of 'BIOS' and 'EFI' need
the latest updates :)

Until now I thought that EFI is a recent replacement for
"BIOS" based machines.

Can anyone clarify the linguistics involved here?

Thanks

[gentoo-user] Re: EFI-based bootloader for BIOS-based computers (?)

[mp]

walt wrote:

> I just spotted that phrase in the sourceforge newsletter:
> 
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/cloverefiboot/
> 
> and it seems to me like an oxymoron.  If that phrase makes
> logical sense then my definitions of 'BIOS' and 'EFI' need
> the latest updates :)
> 
> Until now I thought that EFI is a recent replacement for
> "BIOS" based machines.
> 
> Can anyone clarify the linguistics involved here?
> 
> Thanks

This page (a bit difficult to locate) can help :

http://clover-wiki.zetam.org/Preface

[gentoo-user] Re: EFI-based bootloader for BIOS-based computers (?)

[eroen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1617 bytes --]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:39:51 -0800, walt <w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just spotted that phrase in the sourceforge newsletter:
> 
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/cloverefiboot/
> 
> and it seems to me like an oxymoron.  If that phrase makes
> logical sense then my definitions of 'BIOS' and 'EFI' need
> the latest updates :)
> 
> Until now I thought that EFI is a recent replacement for
> "BIOS" based machines.
> 
> Can anyone clarify the linguistics involved here?

The scope of UEFI is somewhat greater than that of traditional BIOSes.
Both do various hardware initialization and such, but UEFIs (can) have
a number of additional features, including more flexibility in what it
can launch from where (eg. network booting without iPXE) and even an
interactive shell. See [1] for a less organized list of features.

I'm unfamiliar with this project in specific, but I'm going by the line

    This is EFI-based bootloader for BIOS-based computers created as a
    replacement to EDK2/Duet bootloader http://www.tianocore.org.

I have a box running Duet, which is an UEFI implementation that can be
launched by (eg.) the extlinux boot loader on a legacy BIOS system.
Once Duet is launched, the system is mostly indistinguishable from a
native UEFI system that has booted into it's UEFI firmware.

From here, Duet can let the user go through menus to select an EFI
executable to launch (a EFI-stub enabled kernel or some sort of boot
loader), or it can automatically launch something based on existing
configuration.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFI#Features

-- 
eroen

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: EFI-based bootloader for BIOS-based computers (?)

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 2057 bytes --]

On Thursday 20 Feb 2014 01:22:24 eroen wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:39:51 -0800, walt <w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I just spotted that phrase in the sourceforge newsletter:
> > 
> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/cloverefiboot/
> > 
> > and it seems to me like an oxymoron.  If that phrase makes
> > logical sense then my definitions of 'BIOS' and 'EFI' need
> > the latest updates :)
> > 
> > Until now I thought that EFI is a recent replacement for
> > "BIOS" based machines.
> > 
> > Can anyone clarify the linguistics involved here?
> 
> The scope of UEFI is somewhat greater than that of traditional BIOSes.
> Both do various hardware initialization and such, but UEFIs (can) have
> a number of additional features, including more flexibility in what it
> can launch from where (eg. network booting without iPXE) and even an
> interactive shell. See [1] for a less organized list of features.
> 
> I'm unfamiliar with this project in specific, but I'm going by the line
> 
>     This is EFI-based bootloader for BIOS-based computers created as a
>     replacement to EDK2/Duet bootloader http://www.tianocore.org.
> 
> I have a box running Duet, which is an UEFI implementation that can be
> launched by (eg.) the extlinux boot loader on a legacy BIOS system.
> Once Duet is launched, the system is mostly indistinguishable from a
> native UEFI system that has booted into it's UEFI firmware.
> 
> From here, Duet can let the user go through menus to select an EFI
> executable to launch (a EFI-stub enabled kernel or some sort of boot
> loader), or it can automatically launch something based on existing
> configuration.
> 
> 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFI#Features

I guess this can be seen as a BIOS chainloaded UEFI?

BTW, has anyone tried hackintosh in a VM?  I am thinking of using AppleMac's 
Mail program, when I can no longer run the legacy kmail application.  A bit 
drastic to have to load a whole VM just for mail, but I can't find another 
client that suits.

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: EFI-based bootloader for BIOS-based computers (?)

[Poison BL.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2740 bytes --]

On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday 20 Feb 2014 01:22:24 eroen wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:39:51 -0800, walt <w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I just spotted that phrase in the sourceforge newsletter:
> > >
> > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/cloverefiboot/
> > >
> > > and it seems to me like an oxymoron.  If that phrase makes
> > > logical sense then my definitions of 'BIOS' and 'EFI' need
> > > the latest updates :)
> > >
> > > Until now I thought that EFI is a recent replacement for
> > > "BIOS" based machines.
> > >
> > > Can anyone clarify the linguistics involved here?
> >
> > The scope of UEFI is somewhat greater than that of traditional BIOSes.
> > Both do various hardware initialization and such, but UEFIs (can) have
> > a number of additional features, including more flexibility in what it
> > can launch from where (eg. network booting without iPXE) and even an
> > interactive shell. See [1] for a less organized list of features.
> >
> > I'm unfamiliar with this project in specific, but I'm going by the line
> >
> >     This is EFI-based bootloader for BIOS-based computers created as a
> >     replacement to EDK2/Duet bootloader http://www.tianocore.org.
> >
> > I have a box running Duet, which is an UEFI implementation that can be
> > launched by (eg.) the extlinux boot loader on a legacy BIOS system.
> > Once Duet is launched, the system is mostly indistinguishable from a
> > native UEFI system that has booted into it's UEFI firmware.
> >
> > From here, Duet can let the user go through menus to select an EFI
> > executable to launch (a EFI-stub enabled kernel or some sort of boot
> > loader), or it can automatically launch something based on existing
> > configuration.
> >
> > 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFI#Features
>
> I guess this can be seen as a BIOS chainloaded UEFI?
>
> BTW, has anyone tried hackintosh in a VM?  I am thinking of using
> AppleMac's
> Mail program, when I can no longer run the legacy kmail application.  A bit
> drastic to have to load a whole VM just for mail, but I can't find another
> client that suits.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Mick
>

Last I did much research on it, the only semi-working implementation of OSX
in a VM required VMware Workstation as the host, involved booting a hacked
together boot cd image, and crashed and burned hard on updates. It was
interesting, but not very viable for anything that's of any measurable
importance at all. I tested it out for a couple days to compile a little
pice of code a mac user friend wanted to play with... it was dog slow on my
system otherwise (but that was likely my system's fault, old E8400 @4GB ram
at the time + Win7)

-- 
Poison [BLX]
Joshua M. Murphy

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3782 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: EFI-based bootloader for BIOS-based computers (?)

[Michael Hampicke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1144 bytes --]

Am 22.02.2014 16:56, schrieb Poison BL.:
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Last I did much research on it, the only semi-working implementation of OSX
> in a VM required VMware Workstation as the host, involved booting a hacked
> together boot cd image, and crashed and burned hard on updates. It was
> interesting, but not very viable for anything that's of any measurable
> importance at all. I tested it out for a couple days to compile a little
> pice of code a mac user friend wanted to play with... it was dog slow on my
> system otherwise (but that was likely my system's fault, old E8400 @4GB ram
> at the time + Win7)
> 

I too failed miserably trying to run Hackintosh on a Gentoo Host (with
Virtualbox). It's hard to get it to run at all, and when it runs, it's
very slow an unstable.

The only supported way to run OSX in a VM is with an OSX Host and VMware
Fusion. I tried that too on my MacPro, it runs good, but it's not very
smooth because you have no hardware acceleration (graphics) inside the
VM. OSX is just not made to run in an virtualized environment.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: EFI-based bootloader for BIOS-based computers (?)

[Tanstaafl]

On 2014-02-22 8:00 AM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> BTW, has anyone tried hackintosh in a VM?  I am thinking of using AppleMac's
> Mail program, when I can no longer run the legacy kmail application.  A bit
> drastic to have to load a whole VM just for mail, but I can't find another
> client that suits.

Man, if ever there was a program that I hate, it is Apple Mail.

Weirdly, their mobile clients (iPhone/iPad) are excellent (as far as the 
GUI is concerned, dunno about the technical merits of the underpinnings)...

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: EFI-based bootloader for BIOS-based computers (?)

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1314 bytes --]

On Saturday 22 Feb 2014 16:26:49 Michael Hampicke wrote:
> Am 22.02.2014 16:56, schrieb Poison BL.:
> > On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Last I did much research on it, the only semi-working implementation of
> > OSX in a VM required VMware Workstation as the host, involved booting a
> > hacked together boot cd image, and crashed and burned hard on updates.
> > It was interesting, but not very viable for anything that's of any
> > measurable importance at all. I tested it out for a couple days to
> > compile a little pice of code a mac user friend wanted to play with...
> > it was dog slow on my system otherwise (but that was likely my system's
> > fault, old E8400 @4GB ram at the time + Win7)
> 
> I too failed miserably trying to run Hackintosh on a Gentoo Host (with
> Virtualbox). It's hard to get it to run at all, and when it runs, it's
> very slow an unstable.
> 
> The only supported way to run OSX in a VM is with an OSX Host and VMware
> Fusion. I tried that too on my MacPro, it runs good, but it's not very
> smooth because you have no hardware acceleration (graphics) inside the
> VM. OSX is just not made to run in an virtualized environment.

Thank you both, your advice will save me time.  :-)

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]