Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:12:22 -0800 From: Gary Kline <kline@thought.org> To: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Anybody use the Dell 3010?? Message-ID: <20121119211221.GA3936@ethic.thought.org> In-Reply-To: <20121119121832.de248106.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <20121118085838.GA7267@ethic.thought.org> <50AA00BA.1040007@bnrlabs.com> <20121119114306.ff21baa9.freebsd@edvax.de> <20121119060029.76b85120@scorpio> <20121119121832.de248106.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:18:32PM +0100, Polytropon wrote: > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:00:29 -0500, Jerry wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:43:06 +0100 > > Polytropon articulated: > > > > > Allow me to provide just one example: > > > > > > More in the series of bizarre UEFI bugs > > > http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20187.html > > > > That doesn't appear to be a bug. It appears that the code is doing > > exactly what the designer wanted it to do. At best this was an > > oversight by the designer; at worse just plain incompetence. I heard from "my technician" last night--on his way East for the week. he send the URL for an 18MB file {from Dell} all about this new paradigm. --like I've got the time to much around with that much detail... . someone, I think down-queue said something about the UEFI having been designed to make it all the more difficult to drop on FBSD [or anything *except* Doze. my tech echoed the same thing 8 days ago when he dropped off the box. I'm sure by now the BIOS has been hacked beyond reason--especially with the 64-bit versions. Still, if I were designing a new "BIOS" that supported the vast majority of my users [DOZE], I would use every last trick I could dream of to strongly =discourage= anything but Windows. > > That's quite possible. We've seen poorly implemented ACPI > behaviour in "modern" BIOS as well, or manufacturers > intendedly going "their way" to limit hardware in what > it can do or what it will support. Exactly; not to put to fine a point on this, but this is where I smell "greed" as part of the picture/rationale. > It's just my fear that UEFI won't do better per se, and > that lazy or incompetent people will screw it up, and > make it worse. > > The article mentions "legacy boot" to restore a somewhat > "normal" behaviour... > ha! I tried the "legacy" route for hours without success. only when I selected the UEFI did things start to work. and then, upon reboot, I got the string "Cand Find Boot Sector; press any key to reboot" nutshell, I'll scan thru the 18meg file that I have the pointer to. but will probably ask for a "less-featureful" model. > > -- > Polytropon > Magdeburg, Germany > Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 > Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- Gary Kline kline@thought.org http://www.thought.org Public Service Unix Twenty-six years of service to the Unix community.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121119211221.GA3936>