Dual Boot Kubuntu on Windows 8 UEFI System Fails Every Attempt

[chris2kari]

I spent an absolutely huge amount of time on this.
Tried many distro's & every tweak to the system BIOS I could come up with.

My findings:
1) Netrunner was the only distro I could find that would even install & run at all in UEFi mode.
2) Best advice is to reconfigure your BIOS to 'legacy mode' (which turns off secure boot as well), now you are free to install any distro you like.

'Secure boot' is not even very secure & it is proprietary. Lose it.
UEFI is poorly supported, you gain little & will not miss not having it. Lose it.

If you must have a real Windows around just run it in a VM inside your chosen Linux.

Cheers!
Chris

[SteveRiley]

'Secure boot' is not even very secure & it is proprietary. Lose it.

Actually, it does a fine job of protecting against specific kinds of attacks. In reality, these attacks are unlikely to be seen by home users.

And it most certainly is not proprietary; it's an open and documented standard.

UEFI is poorly supported, you gain little & will not miss not having it. Lose it.

BIOS is old and incapable of handling modern computing requirements. UEFI works very well, but to understand it requires the investment of a not insignificant amount of time. Suggesting that people run only in compatibility mode does not mean that you actaully "lose" UEFI, because it's still there. It does mean that you lose all of UEFI's benefits.

If you must have a real Windows around just run it in a VM inside your chosen Linux.

Very sage advice.

[chris2kari]

Actually, it does a fine job of protecting against specific kinds of attacks. In reality, these attacks are unlikely to be seen by home users.

And it most certainly is not proprietary; it's an open and documented standard.


BIOS is old and incapable of handling modern computing requirements. UEFI works very well, but to understand it requires the investment of a not insignificant amount of time. Suggesting that people run only in compatibility mode does not mean that you actaully "lose" UEFI, because it's still there. It does mean that you lose all of UEFI's benefits.


Very sage advice.

Yes,yes, yes, all very fine in theory but in reality it is implemented in a patchy way by manufactures meaning end users are driven mad by it with no tangible benefit. We wasted months researching/testing this and in the end concluded its best to just turn it bloody off!
Turning off all that proprietary Microsoft junk and returning to legacy bios mode immediately gives people full access to install any distro they choose without problems.
Microsoft pushed this, Microsoft appointed themselves the gatekeeper, Microsoft charge a fee to get token to use their sucky proprietary firmware hack.
In the real world its not even very 'secure'.
Telling people to turn it all on is BAD ADVICE imho.
Oh yes, we're all too dumb and your the only one who is so intellectually superior that you have zero problems with uefi interfering with Linux installs.. <rolls eyes>

Have a nice day..
Chris

[vinnywright]

Oh yes, we're all too dumb and your the only one who is so intellectually superior that you have zero problems with uefi interfering with Linux installs.. <rolls eyes>

Have a nice day..
Chris

Kinda harsh DYT ?

@SteveRiley has done a lot of work on this and tryed to help people with this very issue.
and although I dont have an UEFI box ,,,, if I did it would be @SteveRiley I would be PMing to help on my thread .

VINNY

[chris2kari]

Kinda harsh DYT ?

@SteveRiley has done a lot of work on this and tryed to help people with this very issue.
and although I dont have an UEFI box ,,,, if I did it would be @SteveRiley I would be PMing to help on my thread .

VINNY

Perhaps, but I've done the hard yards with UEFI in the real world. When you buy your next PC do yourself a favour & just turn it all off.

I'm really sorry if any bodies feelings got hurt but I don't have time for theoretical 'I heart UEFI coz it's like really kewl' attitudes.

You know some manufacturers are shipping UEFI firmware that cannot be altered? Kiss your Kubuntu et al goodbye on those pc's.

Trust me, UEFI in its present form is a royal pain with no gain. Perverted to Microsofts ends.
I'll go & have a lay down now lol!

Cheers everybody,
Chris


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[SteveRiley]

Yes,yes, yes, all very fine in theory but in reality it is implemented in a patchy way by manufactures

Sources, please.

no tangible benefit

UEFI is superior to BIOS in several dimensions: better support of modern hardware, improved manageability (important in enterprise settings), a fully-functional pre-OS environment, and more.

We wasted months researching/testing this and in the end concluded its best to just turn it bloody off!

You do realize, don't you, that you can't "turn UEFI off"? It is the firmware in nearly all modern machines. It was developed by Intel (not Microsoft) in its earlier, EFI, form in the mid 90s. Apple used, and still does use, an EFI variant. In 2005 Intel joined the Unified EFI Forum, which created the newer UEFI specification. UEFI undergoes continual improvement; the current version, 2.4, was issued in July 2013.

Turning off all that proprietary Microsoft junk

You seem to be equating UEFI with Secure Boot. Secure Boot is a component of UEFI that can indeed be turned off. I have recommended this from the beginning, as I do not subscribe to the belief that it offers reasonable protection for typical use case scenarios. The tradeoffs one must make far exceed the value of Secure Boot: tying an OS so closely to a single machine creates expensive support challenges.

and returning to legacy bios mode immediately gives people full access to install any distro they choose without problems.

And deprives users of UEFI's advanced feature set, including a very handy pre-OS shell that greatly assists troubleshooting. Of course, one must take the time to learn this capability, as one must with any new component.

Microsoft pushed this, Microsoft appointed themselves the gatekeeper, Microsoft charge a fee to get token to use their sucky proprietary firmware hack.

No, they did not push UEFI. They made a business decision to require Secure Boot on all machines whose manufacturers wanted to obtain Windows 8 certification. I question the actual value of this; does J. Random Consumer "look for the logo"? Probably not. But marketing departments, not engineers, make these decisions.

In the real world its not even very 'secure'.

Depends on your threat scenario.

Telling people to turn it all on is BAD ADVICE imho.

Incorrect. Suggesting that people use only BIOS compatibility mode is poor advice and just prolongs the inevitable. UEFI is here to stay. You are free to gripe about it all you want. The rest of us will learn it, perhaps join the Unified EFI Forum, make contributions, and keep our skills up-to-date.

You know some manufacturers are shipping UEFI firmware that cannot be altered? Kiss your Kubuntu et al goodbye on those pc's.

UEFI firmware must be upgradeable. Manufacturers have a degree of latitude in how much control they may wish to expose. Furthermore, Microsoft's logo requirements mandate that manufacturers provide a means to disable Secure Boot. Alas, some manufacturers have chosen to make this rather difficult to discover.

Perhaps, but I've done the hard yards with UEFI in the real world.

The members of KFN, and the thousands of non-registered readers, somehow exist outside the real world, then?

UEFI in its present form is a royal pain with no gain.

You are mistaken. Because you can find nothing positive to say about it, my observation is that perhaps you didn't investigate it closely enough.

I'm really sorry if any bodies feelings got hurt but I don't have time for theoretical 'I heart UEFI coz it's like really kewl' attitudes.

No one here is affecting any kind of theoretical attitude. UEFI's benefits are well-documented. It is entirely your choice, of course, to remain ignorant and critical of technological advances, as you have previously demonstrated.

Oh yes, we're all too dumb and your the only one who is so intellectually superior that you have zero problems with uefi interfering with Linux installs.. <rolls eyes>

So you both presume to speak for all members of the forum and also misrepresent my statements here? Quite rich, coming from someone who so easily lets himself get beaten by mere firmware. You're not exactly new here, but I'll go easy on you -- this time. With a mere 20 posts, you haven't yet established much credibility. I would suggest that insulting the entire forum's membership and impugning one of its administrators really is not the wisest method for earning respect.

[chris2kari]

Sources? Oh please.. lets not play that game shall we?
Clearly you're a big advocate of UEFI. I respect that.
You've tried to help others work through the painful problems of UEFI. I respect that.

UEFI is an attempt to modernise firmware to cope with the demands of new computing devices & operating conditions.
We get that ok?

3 problems:
The first problem is that it has been perverted by a big OS vendor (Microsoft) to make their own OS look good at the expense of all 'competitors' OS's.
The second problem is erratic/proprietary implementations by different manufacturers.
The third problem is that Linux implementation of UEFI support is immature.

You cannot possibly tell me with a straight face that you are not aware of this.
Sorry for hijacking the thread everybody, we now return you to your regular viewing channel ;-)

Chris

[SteveRiley]

The first problem is that it has been perverted by a big OS vendor (Microsoft) to make their own OS look good at the expense of all 'competitors' OS's.

Wrong. Microsoft has done nothing to "pervert" UEFI. They have significantly increased the difficulty of installing alternate operating systems by making Secure Boot a logo requirement, something to which I am opposed and have sharply criticized them for previously.

The second problem is erratic/proprietary implementations by different manufacturers.

Inaccurate. UEFI is not proprietary. Implementations have been troublesome and inconsistent, yes. As the standard matures, we should start to see more consistency. I would also like to see the Unified EFI Forum become more prescriptive with respect to configurability. Far too many features are not exposed in most firmware UIs that I see.

The third problem is that Linux implementation of UEFI support is immature.

Granted. But I remind you: we're using software we haven't paid for, written by developers with their own agendas, limited resources, and too many demands on their time.

You cannot possibly tell me with a straight face that you are not aware of this.

Of course I am. But rather than gripe about it, I've decided to learn everything I can, document what I know, and pass that knowledge on to others. Won't you join me?

[OldSmoky2]

Thanks, SteveRiley, for the info... interesting stuff, and I'm glad I've read through this thread. It even prompted me to go to the UEFI Forum site and read up on it, where I see that Canonical, Red Hat and The Linux Foundation are among the contributors. I'm not a techie - what I know about Linux I know through my own experiences as an end-user for a number of years. But it's good to know there's a difference between UEFI and Microsoft's implementation of it. And, yes, it's also clear from reading up on this that BIOS is the past and UEFI is the future. Once again, learning more is a good thing.