Discussion:
Warning to Manjaro users that dual boot Win 10
(too old to reply)
Melzzzzz
2019-12-14 22:13:28 UTC
Permalink
I have in VM dual boot Manjaro and Win 10.
Latest Windows update overwrote grub boot file
with something else so that grub entered rescue
mode.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/help-fixing-grub-unknown-filesystem/99429/7
I used different gpt number, but solution worked.
Who gives right to M$ to overwite files in EFI partitition?
What fuckers.
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
U ničemu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec
Svi smo svedoci - oko 3 godine intenzivne propagande je dovoljno da jedan narod poludi -- Zli Zec
Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi
bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala
Pascal Hambourg
2019-12-14 23:23:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Melzzzzz
I have in VM dual boot Manjaro and Win 10.
Latest Windows update overwrote grub boot file
with something else so that grub entered rescue
mode.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/help-fixing-grub-unknown-filesystem/99429/7
I used different gpt number, but solution worked.
Who gives right to M$ to overwite files in EFI partitition?
1) /boot/efi/EFI/boot/bootx64.efi is not a GRUB boot file. It is the
fallback EFI boot loader, and any OS using the same EFI partition may
overwrite it with its own boot loader anytime. A bit like the MBR for
BIOS boot. You should not rely on it being unchanged when sharing the
EFI partition with other OSes.

2) This cannot cause GRUB entering rescue mode. Partition renumbering or
booting the wrong GRUB core image may.

By the way, there is nothing specific to Manjaro.
Melzzzzz
2019-12-15 10:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Melzzzzz
I have in VM dual boot Manjaro and Win 10.
Latest Windows update overwrote grub boot file
with something else so that grub entered rescue
mode.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/help-fixing-grub-unknown-filesystem/99429/7
I used different gpt number, but solution worked.
Who gives right to M$ to overwite files in EFI partitition?
1) /boot/efi/EFI/boot/bootx64.efi is not a GRUB boot file. It is the
fallback EFI boot loader, and any OS using the same EFI partition may
overwrite it with its own boot loader anytime. A bit like the MBR for
BIOS boot. You should not rely on it being unchanged when sharing the
EFI partition with other OSes.
2) This cannot cause GRUB entering rescue mode. Partition renumbering or
booting the wrong GRUB core image may.
By the way, there is nothing specific to Manjaro.
Look, system was unbootable after Windows upgrade. I don't have a
problem overwiting boot file, rather that. Unbootable...
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
U ničemu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec
Svi smo svedoci - oko 3 godine intenzivne propagande je dovoljno da jedan narod poludi -- Zli Zec
Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi
bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala
Soviet_Mario
2019-12-15 11:33:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Melzzzzz
I have in VM dual boot Manjaro and Win 10.
Latest Windows update overwrote grub boot file
with something else so that grub entered rescue
mode.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/help-fixing-grub-unknown-filesystem/99429/7
I used different gpt number, but solution worked.
Who gives right to M$ to overwite files in EFI partitition?
1) /boot/efi/EFI/boot/bootx64.efi is not a GRUB boot file. It is the
fallback EFI boot loader, and any OS using the same EFI partition may
overwrite it with its own boot loader anytime. A bit like the MBR for
BIOS boot. You should not rely on it being unchanged when sharing the
EFI partition with other OSes.
2) This cannot cause GRUB entering rescue mode. Partition renumbering or
booting the wrong GRUB core image may.
By the way, there is nothing specific to Manjaro.
Look, system was unbootable after Windows upgrade. I don't have a
problem overwiting boot file, rather that. Unbootable...
why not to put Windows in a virtual machine?
maybe slower, but harmless ...
--
1) Resistere, resistere, resistere.
2) Se tutti pagano le tasse, le tasse le pagano tutti
Soviet_Mario - (aka Gatto_Vizzato)
Melzzzzz
2019-12-15 13:28:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soviet_Mario
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Melzzzzz
I have in VM dual boot Manjaro and Win 10.
Latest Windows update overwrote grub boot file
with something else so that grub entered rescue
mode.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/help-fixing-grub-unknown-filesystem/99429/7
I used different gpt number, but solution worked.
Who gives right to M$ to overwite files in EFI partitition?
1) /boot/efi/EFI/boot/bootx64.efi is not a GRUB boot file. It is the
fallback EFI boot loader, and any OS using the same EFI partition may
overwrite it with its own boot loader anytime. A bit like the MBR for
BIOS boot. You should not rely on it being unchanged when sharing the
EFI partition with other OSes.
2) This cannot cause GRUB entering rescue mode. Partition renumbering or
booting the wrong GRUB core image may.
By the way, there is nothing specific to Manjaro.
Look, system was unbootable after Windows upgrade. I don't have a
problem overwiting boot file, rather that. Unbootable...
why not to put Windows in a virtual machine?
maybe slower, but harmless ...
That was virtual machine dual boot with Manjaro. I am not crazy to put
Windows 10 on bare metal...
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
U ničemu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec
Svi smo svedoci - oko 3 godine intenzivne propagande je dovoljno da jedan narod poludi -- Zli Zec
Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi
bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala
Kenny McCormack
2019-12-15 13:58:07 UTC
Permalink
In article <0yqJF.13306$***@fx31.am4>,
Melzzzzz <***@zzzzz.com> wrote:
...
Post by Melzzzzz
That was virtual machine dual boot with Manjaro. I am not crazy to put
Windows 10 on bare metal...
Why bother? I see no possible reason to run Windows 10 on anything other
than bare metal, since whatever utility it may have, will be rendered
useless in a VM.

I.e., if you don't have a safe place to run it on bare metal, why are you
bothering with Win10 at all?

And, as the previous poster alluded to, if you *do* run it in a VM, why run
other OSes in the same VM? Again, if Win10 has any utility at all, it
needs to be kept all by itself, in its own little cage.
--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/RightWingMedia
Melzzzzz
2019-12-15 15:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kenny McCormack
...
Post by Melzzzzz
That was virtual machine dual boot with Manjaro. I am not crazy to put
Windows 10 on bare metal...
Why bother? I see no possible reason to run Windows 10 on anything other
than bare metal, since whatever utility it may have, will be rendered
useless in a VM.
I.e., if you don't have a safe place to run it on bare metal, why are you
bothering with Win10 at all?
I use VS for development for time to time, rarely but do.
Post by Kenny McCormack
And, as the previous poster alluded to, if you *do* run it in a VM, why run
other OSes in the same VM? Again, if Win10 has any utility at all, it
needs to be kept all by itself, in its own little cage.
I want to experiment with dual boot without risking to break host OS.
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
U ničemu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec
Svi smo svedoci - oko 3 godine intenzivne propagande je dovoljno da jedan narod poludi -- Zli Zec
Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi
bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala
Ned Latham
2019-12-15 17:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Melzzzzz wrote:

----snip----
Post by Melzzzzz
I want to experiment with dual boot without risking to break host OS.
Windows won't break the host OS, it just overwrites the boot info on
the drive. Executing your host OS boot loader from *its* install disc
fixes the problem.
Soviet_Mario
2019-12-15 17:52:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kenny McCormack
...
Post by Melzzzzz
That was virtual machine dual boot with Manjaro. I am not crazy to put
Windows 10 on bare metal...
Why bother? I see no possible reason to run Windows 10 on anything other
than bare metal, since whatever utility it may have, will be rendered
useless in a VM.
I.e., if you don't have a safe place to run it on bare metal, why are you
bothering with Win10 at all?
And, as the previous poster alluded to, if you *do* run it in a VM, why run
other OSes in the same VM?
it seems absurd to me too ... maybe just experiments of
compatibility, or to catch the culprit red handed :)
Post by Kenny McCormack
Again, if Win10 has any utility at all, it
the SW park is very large though, and there used to be good
sw also, even if most of best is payed.
It may have some value added by mean of those sw,
particularly in some specific work areas
Post by Kenny McCormack
needs to be kept all by itself, in its own little cage.
sure :)
--
1) Resistere, resistere, resistere.
2) Se tutti pagano le tasse, le tasse le pagano tutti
Soviet_Mario - (aka Gatto_Vizzato)
Soviet_Mario
2019-12-15 17:49:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Soviet_Mario
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Melzzzzz
I have in VM dual boot Manjaro and Win 10.
Latest Windows update overwrote grub boot file
with something else so that grub entered rescue
mode.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/help-fixing-grub-unknown-filesystem/99429/7
I used different gpt number, but solution worked.
Who gives right to M$ to overwite files in EFI partitition?
1) /boot/efi/EFI/boot/bootx64.efi is not a GRUB boot file. It is the
fallback EFI boot loader, and any OS using the same EFI partition may
overwrite it with its own boot loader anytime. A bit like the MBR for
BIOS boot. You should not rely on it being unchanged when sharing the
EFI partition with other OSes.
2) This cannot cause GRUB entering rescue mode. Partition renumbering or
booting the wrong GRUB core image may.
By the way, there is nothing specific to Manjaro.
Look, system was unbootable after Windows upgrade. I don't have a
problem overwiting boot file, rather that. Unbootable...
why not to put Windows in a virtual machine?
maybe slower, but harmless ...
That was virtual machine dual boot with Manjaro. I am not crazy to put
Windows 10 on bare metal...
LOL !!! agreed :) :)
--
1) Resistere, resistere, resistere.
2) Se tutti pagano le tasse, le tasse le pagano tutti
Soviet_Mario - (aka Gatto_Vizzato)
Steve Carroll
2019-12-21 20:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soviet_Mario
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Melzzzzz
I have in VM dual boot Manjaro and Win 10.
Latest Windows update overwrote grub boot file
with something else so that grub entered rescue
mode.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/help-fixing-grub-unknown-filesystem/99429/7
I used different gpt number, but solution worked.
Who gives right to M$ to overwite files in EFI partitition?
1) /boot/efi/EFI/boot/bootx64.efi is not a GRUB boot file. It is the
fallback EFI boot loader, and any OS using the same EFI partition may
overwrite it with its own boot loader anytime. A bit like the MBR for
BIOS boot. You should not rely on it being unchanged when sharing the
EFI partition with other OSes.
2) This cannot cause GRUB entering rescue mode. Partition renumbering or
booting the wrong GRUB core image may.
By the way, there is nothing specific to Manjaro.
Look, system was unbootable after Windows upgrade. I don't have a
problem overwiting boot file, rather that. Unbootable...
why not to put Windows in a virtual machine?
maybe slower, but harmless ...
--
1) Resistere, resistere, resistere.
2) Se tutti pagano le tasse, le tasse le pagano tutti
Soviet_Mario - (aka Gatto_Vizzato)
This is something the mainstream media never covers. Jesus Christ gets off on that Marek Novotny is on the other end. Imagine if Jesus Christ walked up to a chimpanzee and delivered the punch line. It wouldn't be funny. <giggle>



-
This Trick Gets Women Hot For You!

Jonas Eklundh Communication
Ned Latham
2019-12-15 11:39:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Melzzzzz
I have in VM dual boot Manjaro and Win 10.
Latest Windows update overwrote grub boot file
with something else so that grub entered rescue
mode.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/help-fixing-grub-unknown-filesystem/99429/7
I used different gpt number, but solution worked.
Who gives right to M$ to overwite files in EFI partitition?
1) /boot/efi/EFI/boot/bootx64.efi is not a GRUB boot file. It is the
fallback EFI boot loader, and any OS using the same EFI partition may
overwrite it with its own boot loader anytime. A bit like the MBR for
BIOS boot. You should not rely on it being unchanged when sharing the
EFI partition with other OSes.
2) This cannot cause GRUB entering rescue mode. Partition renumbering or
booting the wrong GRUB core image may.
By the way, there is nothing specific to Manjaro.
Look, system was unbootable after Windows upgrade. I don't have a
problem overwiting boot file, rather that. Unbootable...
It's not a Manjaro problem, or even a linux problem. Windows is the
problem: every version of it does that to every system but another
Windows, in both UEFI and BIOS boots.

There's a simple fix:

1. Install Windows before anything else.
2. Then make your system usable and powerful by installing a real OS.

3. Sadly, you will sooner or later have to reinstall Windows:
a. boot from your real OS's install disc;
b. mount the system drive and cd to its etc directory
c. execute your boot loader, giving it the mount address
of its configuration file.
Soviet_Mario
2019-12-15 11:55:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Melzzzzz
I have in VM dual boot Manjaro and Win 10.
Latest Windows update overwrote grub boot file
with something else so that grub entered rescue
mode.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/help-fixing-grub-unknown-filesystem/99429/7
I used different gpt number, but solution worked.
Who gives right to M$ to overwite files in EFI partitition?
1) /boot/efi/EFI/boot/bootx64.efi is not a GRUB boot file. It is the
fallback EFI boot loader, and any OS using the same EFI partition may
overwrite it with its own boot loader anytime. A bit like the MBR for
BIOS boot. You should not rely on it being unchanged when sharing the
EFI partition with other OSes.
2) This cannot cause GRUB entering rescue mode. Partition renumbering or
booting the wrong GRUB core image may.
By the way, there is nothing specific to Manjaro.
Look, system was unbootable after Windows upgrade. I don't have a
problem overwiting boot file, rather that. Unbootable...
It's not a Manjaro problem, or even a linux problem. Windows is the
problem: every version of it does that to every system but another
Windows, in both UEFI and BIOS boots.
1. Install Windows before anything else.
2. Then make your system usable and powerful by installing a real OS.
a. boot from your real OS's install disc;
b. mount the system drive and cd to its etc directory
c. execute your boot loader, giving it the mount address
of its configuration file.
mmm, never ever again will a proprietary "OS" get control of
any machine of mine.
--
1) Resistere, resistere, resistere.
2) Se tutti pagano le tasse, le tasse le pagano tutti
Soviet_Mario - (aka Gatto_Vizzato)
Ned Latham
2019-12-15 12:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soviet_Mario
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Melzzzzz
I have in VM dual boot Manjaro and Win 10.
Latest Windows update overwrote grub boot file
with something else so that grub entered rescue
mode.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/help-fixing-grub-unknown-filesystem/99429/7
I used different gpt number, but solution worked.
Who gives right to M$ to overwite files in EFI partitition?
1) /boot/efi/EFI/boot/bootx64.efi is not a GRUB boot file. It is the
fallback EFI boot loader, and any OS using the same EFI partition may
overwrite it with its own boot loader anytime. A bit like the MBR for
BIOS boot. You should not rely on it being unchanged when sharing the
EFI partition with other OSes.
2) This cannot cause GRUB entering rescue mode. Partition renumbering or
booting the wrong GRUB core image may.
By the way, there is nothing specific to Manjaro.
Look, system was unbootable after Windows upgrade. I don't have a
problem overwiting boot file, rather that. Unbootable...
It's not a Manjaro problem, or even a linux problem. Windows is the
problem: every version of it does that to every system but another
Windows, in both UEFI and BIOS boots.
1. Install Windows before anything else.
2. Then make your system usable and powerful by installing a real OS.
a. boot from your real OS's install disc;
b. mount the system drive and cd to its etc directory
c. execute your boot loader, giving it the mount address
of its configuration file.
mmm, never ever again will a proprietary "OS" get control of
any machine of mine.
I distrust Microsoft and their slopware so profoundly that I do not
allow my Windows machines access to the internet. All they can talk
to is my file/print server and each other.
Soviet_Mario
2019-12-15 13:04:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Soviet_Mario
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Melzzzzz
I have in VM dual boot Manjaro and Win 10.
Latest Windows update overwrote grub boot file
with something else so that grub entered rescue
mode.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/help-fixing-grub-unknown-filesystem/99429/7
I used different gpt number, but solution worked.
Who gives right to M$ to overwite files in EFI partitition?
1) /boot/efi/EFI/boot/bootx64.efi is not a GRUB boot file. It is the
fallback EFI boot loader, and any OS using the same EFI partition may
overwrite it with its own boot loader anytime. A bit like the MBR for
BIOS boot. You should not rely on it being unchanged when sharing the
EFI partition with other OSes.
2) This cannot cause GRUB entering rescue mode. Partition renumbering or
booting the wrong GRUB core image may.
By the way, there is nothing specific to Manjaro.
Look, system was unbootable after Windows upgrade. I don't have a
problem overwiting boot file, rather that. Unbootable...
It's not a Manjaro problem, or even a linux problem. Windows is the
problem: every version of it does that to every system but another
Windows, in both UEFI and BIOS boots.
1. Install Windows before anything else.
2. Then make your system usable and powerful by installing a real OS.
a. boot from your real OS's install disc;
b. mount the system drive and cd to its etc directory
c. execute your boot loader, giving it the mount address
of its configuration file.
mmm, never ever again will a proprietary "OS" get control of
any machine of mine.
I distrust Microsoft and their slopware so profoundly that I do not
allow my Windows machines access to the internet. All they can talk
to is my file/print server and each other.
so do I !!! I disabled (on VBox) the emulated net card. And
I underline I have a regular copy of the SW (though I saved
in many snapshots for backup purposes), but I had never run
multiple copies or on more than a PC at a time, so I did
never strictly violate the licence. But I was diffident they
would understand this usage pattern, so zero internet
access. I just run a pair of SW (chemsketch and hyperchem)
... now I'm finding some partial, acceptable support from
WINE directly, that is much faster to launch, far less
memory hungry than Virtual Box and most immediately sees the
disks and shares clipboard, so even the need of VBoxes is
vanishing
--
1) Resistere, resistere, resistere.
2) Se tutti pagano le tasse, le tasse le pagano tutti
Soviet_Mario - (aka Gatto_Vizzato)
David W. Hodgins
2019-12-15 14:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Soviet_Mario
mmm, never ever again will a proprietary "OS" get control of
any machine of mine.
So no modern intel or amd processors, since they have what amounts to a closed
source proprietary os that's in control of the system before the regular os.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Platform_Security_Processor

Regards, Dave Hodgins
--
Change ***@nomail.afraid.org to ***@teksavvy.com for
email replies.
Aragorn
2019-12-15 15:53:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 06:55:39 -0500, Soviet_Mario
Post by Soviet_Mario
mmm, never ever again will a proprietary "OS" get control of
any machine of mine.
So no modern intel or amd processors, since they have what amounts to
a closed source proprietary os that's in control of the system before
the regular os. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Platform_Security_Processor
Well, to be fair, that would apply only to AMD then. The OS in the
Intel Management Engine is a 32-bit Minix, which nowadays is officially
Free Software as defined by the Free Software Foundation. :)
--
With respect,
= Aragorn =
Ned Latham
2019-12-15 17:30:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aragorn
Post by David W. Hodgins
Post by Soviet_Mario
mmm, never ever again will a proprietary "OS" get control of
any machine of mine.
So no modern intel or amd processors, since they have what amounts to
a closed source proprietary os that's in control of the system before
the regular os. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Platform_Security_Processor
The processors are okay: those systems are on company motherboards. I'd
say either get third party MB's or disable the embedded system before
building your computer.
Post by Aragorn
Well, to be fair, that would apply only to AMD then. The OS in the
Intel Management Engine is a 32-bit Minix, which nowadays is officially
Free Software as defined by the Free Software Foundation. :)
But the source code isn't available. We know nothing of the back doors,
trojans, and WTF else has been created in it.
Aragorn
2019-12-15 17:47:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Aragorn
Well, to be fair, that would apply only to AMD then. The OS in the
Intel Management Engine is a 32-bit Minix, which nowadays is
officially Free Software as defined by the Free Software
Foundation. :)
But the source code isn't available. We know nothing of the back
doors, trojans, and WTF else has been created in it.
Tge prerequisite for Free Software as defined by the FSF and similar
organizations is that the source code MUST be made available to anyone
who receives the code in its binary implementation.

As such, every Intel computer owner has the legal right to demand the
source code from Intel for the Minix implementation in their IME. Intel
knows that, so I doubt whether there would truly be any backdoors in
the IME.
--
With respect,
= Aragorn =
Ned Latham
2019-12-15 18:33:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aragorn
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Aragorn
Well, to be fair, that would apply only to AMD then. The OS in
the Intel Management Engine is a 32-bit Minix, which nowadays is
officially Free Software as defined by the Free Software
Foundation. :)
But the source code isn't available. We know nothing of the back
doors, trojans, and WTF else has been created in it.
Tge prerequisite for Free Software as defined by the FSF and similar
organizations is that the source code MUST be made available to anyone
who receives the code in its binary implementation.
As such, every Intel computer owner has the legal right to demand the
source code from Intel for the Minix implementation in their IME. Intel
knows that, so I doubt whether there would truly be any backdoors in
the IME.
Let me be a little more careful. The source code not only isn't available,
we have no way of checking that the source code they supply on receipt
of a demand is the source of the machine code in their IME. Unless their
IME is on an EEPROM and was compiled by you from verified source code,
there's no reason *whatever* to trust that there's no malware in it.

IMO.
John Hasler
2019-12-15 21:16:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aragorn
As such, every Intel computer owner has the legal right to demand the
source code from Intel for the Minix implementation in their IME.
Wrong. Minix is under the BSD license.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINIX
Post by Aragorn
Let me be a little more careful. The source code not only isn't
available, we have no way of checking that the source code they supply
on receipt of a demand is the source of the machine code in their IME.
Those chips are so complex that we have no way of knowing for sure what
all is in them anyway. When you buy an Intel cpu you trust Intel. No
option.
--
John Hasler
***@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Ned Latham
2019-12-15 22:25:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Hasler
Post by Aragorn
As such, every Intel computer owner has the legal right to demand the
source code from Intel for the Minix implementation in their IME.
Wrong. Minix is under the BSD license.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINIX
Post by Aragorn
Let me be a little more careful. The source code not only isn't
available, we have no way of checking that the source code they supply
on receipt of a demand is the source of the machine code in their IME.
Those chips are so complex that we have no way of knowing for sure what
all is in them anyway. When you buy an Intel cpu you trust Intel. No
option.
The IME isn't in the chip.

And you seem to be missing the issue. Both Microsoft and Apple have been
peddling trojan horses to us for years now. That's bad enough with their
machines in virtually every office and home on the planet that can buy
one, but how do you think it'll be when the personal computer is a
network of nodes embedded in the user's body, powered by the user's
metabolism and in direct contact with the user's CNS? You gonna rely on
trusting those crooks? Both of them have been caught with their fingers
in the cookie jar; both of them have histories of cooperating with third
parties to the detriment of their customers...

If they get such shit into the chip itself, unsidelineable, we as a
species are fucked.

Trust is what's not an option.
Carlos E.R.
2019-12-16 00:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Latham
Post by John Hasler
Post by Aragorn
As such, every Intel computer owner has the legal right to demand the
source code from Intel for the Minix implementation in their IME.
Wrong. Minix is under the BSD license.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINIX
Post by Aragorn
Let me be a little more careful. The source code not only isn't
available, we have no way of checking that the source code they supply
on receipt of a demand is the source of the machine code in their IME.
Those chips are so complex that we have no way of knowing for sure what
all is in them anyway. When you buy an Intel cpu you trust Intel. No
option.
The IME isn't in the chip.
And you seem to be missing the issue. Both Microsoft and Apple have been
peddling trojan horses to us for years now. That's bad enough with their
machines in virtually every office and home on the planet that can buy
one, but how do you think it'll be when the personal computer is a
network of nodes embedded in the user's body, powered by the user's
metabolism and in direct contact with the user's CNS? You gonna rely on
trusting those crooks? Both of them have been caught with their fingers
in the cookie jar; both of them have histories of cooperating with third
parties to the detriment of their customers...
If they get such shit into the chip itself, unsidelineable, we as a
species are fucked.
Trust is what's not an option.
LOL. The IME is an enterprise class feature, not a trojan.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Ned Latham
2019-12-16 01:14:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Ned Latham
Post by John Hasler
Post by Aragorn
As such, every Intel computer owner has the legal right to demand the
source code from Intel for the Minix implementation in their IME.
Wrong. Minix is under the BSD license.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINIX
Post by Aragorn
Let me be a little more careful. The source code not only isn't
available, we have no way of checking that the source code they supply
on receipt of a demand is the source of the machine code in their IME.
Those chips are so complex that we have no way of knowing for sure what
all is in them anyway. When you buy an Intel cpu you trust Intel. No
option.
The IME isn't in the chip.
And you seem to be missing the issue. Both Microsoft and Apple have been
peddling trojan horses to us for years now. That's bad enough with their
machines in virtually every office and home on the planet that can buy
one, but how do you think it'll be when the personal computer is a
network of nodes embedded in the user's body, powered by the user's
metabolism and in direct contact with the user's CNS? You gonna rely on
trusting those crooks? Both of them have been caught with their fingers
in the cookie jar; both of them have histories of cooperating with third
parties to the detriment of their customers...
If they get such shit into the chip itself, unsidelineable, we as a
species are fucked.
Trust is what's not an option.
LOL. The IME is an enterprise class feature, not a trojan.
I didn't say it *is* a trojan. But remember that Microsoft and Apple are
both peddling trojans *right now* into our homes and offices, and Intel
is one of the companies that took part with them in the oligopolic
campaign to prevent Acorn from getting a market share in the USA, and
also in the attempt to steal WiFi technology from its developer. Like
Microsoft and Apple (and numerous other corporates) they are not to be
trusted.

If you want to believe that the IME doesn't *include* a trojan, and
never will, that's cool: I have a bridge that might interest you.
John Hasler
2019-12-16 00:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Latham
The IME isn't in the chip.
You don't know what is in the chip, which was my point. Why fixate on
the question of whether they are telling the truth about what is in the
IME when you can't know what's in the chip?
Post by Ned Latham
And you seem to be missing the issue.
Please state the issue.
Post by Ned Latham
...how do you think it'll be when the personal computer is a network
of nodes embedded in the user's body, powered by the user's metabolism
and in direct contact with the user's CNS?
Not in mine.
Post by Ned Latham
You gonna rely on trusting those crooks?
I said that if you use Intel chips you have no alternative but to trust
them. You evidently know of an alternative: a way to use Intel chips
and yet not need to trust them. What is it?
--
John Hasler
***@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Ned Latham
2019-12-16 02:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Hasler
Post by Ned Latham
The IME isn't in the chip.
You don't know what is in the chip, which was my point. Why fixate on
the question of whether they are telling the truth about what is in the
IME when you can't know what's in the chip?
Actually, the chip is relatively easy to read, and one thing we know is
*not* in the chip is code of sufficient complexity to perform as malware.
Post by John Hasler
Post by Ned Latham
And you seem to be missing the issue.
Please state the issue.
I did. Personal security.
Post by John Hasler
Post by Ned Latham
...how do you think it'll be when the personal computer is a network
of nodes embedded in the user's body, powered by the user's metabolism
and in direct contact with the user's CNS?
Not in mine.
You reckon you'll not live long enough?
Post by John Hasler
Post by Ned Latham
You gonna rely on trusting those crooks?
I said that if you use Intel chips you have no alternative but to trust
them.
And the topic then was the IME, which is not on their chips.
Post by John Hasler
You evidently know of an alternative: a way to use Intel chips
and yet not need to trust them. What is it?
I told you. Use a third party MB or disable the IME.
Paul
2019-12-16 02:14:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Hasler
Post by Aragorn
As such, every Intel computer owner has the legal right to demand the
source code from Intel for the Minix implementation in their IME.
Wrong. Minix is under the BSD license.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINIX
Post by Aragorn
Let me be a little more careful. The source code not only isn't
available, we have no way of checking that the source code they supply
on receipt of a demand is the source of the machine code in their IME.
Those chips are so complex that we have no way of knowing for sure what
all is in them anyway. When you buy an Intel cpu you trust Intel. No
option.
The basic principle of the management engine is here.

http://pds4.egloos.com/pds/200706/04/57/ps_adts003.pdf

The enabler is the "magic NIC". Certain NICs are dual-head,
where packets are inspected as they come into the computer,
and stuff destined for the MINIX engine is forwarded there.

If you take a ME machine and put your own NIC in it, and
stop using the Intel NIC, then that's a first step to
preventing the ME from getting into trouble.

A later version of ME gains access to Wifi, and this
likely requires a "blessed" Wifi hardware to go with it.
I've not seen any documentation with the Wifi featured
in it.

The design is such, that if the main processor is crashed,
you can remote into the MINIX machine and reboot the main CPU.

There is no jumper to disable ME. While there are other
mechanisms to disable ME, they require a sense of "trust"
that isn't there. For example, you can load a BIOS file
where the ME image is "null", but I don't really think
the copy of MINIX stops running. The MINIX thing could have
a watchdog timer that needs to be cleared every once in a
while, which could mean a "minimum sized code module" is
required to be present. I don't have any docs that go
into that level of detail.

Paul
Carlos E.R.
2019-12-16 13:29:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Aragorn
As such, every Intel computer owner has the legal right to demand the
source code from Intel for the Minix implementation in their IME.
Wrong.  Minix is under the BSD license.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINIX
Post by Aragorn
Let me be a little more careful. The source code not only isn't
available, we have no way of checking that the source code they supply
on receipt of a demand is the source of the machine code in their IME.
Those chips are so complex that we have no way of knowing for sure what
all is in them anyway. When you buy an Intel cpu you trust Intel.  No
option.
The basic principle of the management engine is here.
http://pds4.egloos.com/pds/200706/04/57/ps_adts003.pdf
The enabler is the "magic NIC". Certain NICs are dual-head,
where packets are inspected as they come into the computer,
and stuff destined for the MINIX engine is forwarded there.
If you take a ME machine and put your own NIC in it, and
stop using the Intel NIC, then that's a first step to
preventing the ME from getting into trouble.
A later version of ME gains access to Wifi, and this
likely requires a "blessed" Wifi hardware to go with it.
I've not seen any documentation with the Wifi featured
in it.
The design is such, that if the main processor is crashed,
you can remote into the MINIX machine and reboot the main CPU.
Yes, and this is a wanted feature on many enterprise environments. It
needs certain software to handle it, which is not open and is probably
expensive.

It is certainly interesting to anybody doing remote maintenance of
computers. You can have a client and do the maintenance even if the OS
crashes and you are shooed out. Instead of taking the car out, you get
in via IME. What is not good is that it may have security holes that bad
guys may know about, and no security updates known or done.

Of course, other people do not want it at all; just buy motherboards
that don't have it. Should be cheaper.

Some BIOS allow enabling/disabling it. Or setting its password.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Paul
2019-12-16 19:05:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Paul
Post by John Hasler
Post by Aragorn
As such, every Intel computer owner has the legal right to demand the
source code from Intel for the Minix implementation in their IME.
Wrong. Minix is under the BSD license.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINIX
Post by Aragorn
Let me be a little more careful. The source code not only isn't
available, we have no way of checking that the source code they supply
on receipt of a demand is the source of the machine code in their IME.
Those chips are so complex that we have no way of knowing for sure what
all is in them anyway. When you buy an Intel cpu you trust Intel. No
option.
The basic principle of the management engine is here.
http://pds4.egloos.com/pds/200706/04/57/ps_adts003.pdf
The enabler is the "magic NIC". Certain NICs are dual-head,
where packets are inspected as they come into the computer,
and stuff destined for the MINIX engine is forwarded there.
If you take a ME machine and put your own NIC in it, and
stop using the Intel NIC, then that's a first step to
preventing the ME from getting into trouble.
A later version of ME gains access to Wifi, and this
likely requires a "blessed" Wifi hardware to go with it.
I've not seen any documentation with the Wifi featured
in it.
The design is such, that if the main processor is crashed,
you can remote into the MINIX machine and reboot the main CPU.
Yes, and this is a wanted feature on many enterprise environments. It
needs certain software to handle it, which is not open and is probably
expensive.
It is certainly interesting to anybody doing remote maintenance of
computers. You can have a client and do the maintenance even if the OS
crashes and you are shooed out. Instead of taking the car out, you get
in via IME. What is not good is that it may have security holes that bad
guys may know about, and no security updates known or done.
Of course, other people do not want it at all; just buy motherboards
that don't have it. Should be cheaper.
Some BIOS allow enabling/disabling it. Or setting its password.
I'm not convinced it's ever disabled, despite all
the garbage Intel provides to fool you.

Intel provided a desktop application that claims to read
out the status and show it is "disabled". But there's no way
for you to know what the Minix is doing down there. Even if you
conduct a study for a day with Wireshark (assuming Wireshark
can even see both heads of the NIC!), the Minix could wait
until you're not present, or detects you're not studying it.

If it had a separate quartz crystal to provide a clock signal,
we could ground that and take it out of action. It's not designed
to stop, and if it uses a watchdog to maintain a running status,
may be hard to stop completely. It could, for example, be tied
to the RTC clock (32768Hz) and use a synthesizer to attain
the running clock. Even if the computer is in S5 (FSB clock stopped),
it's still got a clock for itself, so it can awake and do stuff.

Paul
Carlos E.R.
2019-12-16 19:34:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Paul
Post by Aragorn
As such, every Intel computer owner has the legal right to demand the
source code from Intel for the Minix implementation in their IME.
Wrong.  Minix is under the BSD license.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINIX
Post by Aragorn
Let me be a little more careful. The source code not only isn't
available, we have no way of checking that the source code they supply
on receipt of a demand is the source of the machine code in their IME.
Those chips are so complex that we have no way of knowing for sure what
all is in them anyway. When you buy an Intel cpu you trust Intel.  No
option.
The basic principle of the management engine is here.
http://pds4.egloos.com/pds/200706/04/57/ps_adts003.pdf
The enabler is the "magic NIC". Certain NICs are dual-head,
where packets are inspected as they come into the computer,
and stuff destined for the MINIX engine is forwarded there.
If you take a ME machine and put your own NIC in it, and
stop using the Intel NIC, then that's a first step to
preventing the ME from getting into trouble.
A later version of ME gains access to Wifi, and this
likely requires a "blessed" Wifi hardware to go with it.
I've not seen any documentation with the Wifi featured
in it.
The design is such, that if the main processor is crashed,
you can remote into the MINIX machine and reboot the main CPU.
Yes, and this is a wanted feature on many enterprise environments. It
needs certain software to handle it, which is not open and is probably
expensive.
It is certainly interesting to anybody doing remote maintenance of
computers. You can have a client and do the maintenance even if the OS
crashes and you are shooed out. Instead of taking the car out, you get
in via IME. What is not good is that it may have security holes that bad
guys may know about, and no security updates known or done.
Of course, other people do not want it at all; just buy motherboards
that don't have it. Should be cheaper.
Some BIOS allow enabling/disabling it. Or setting its password.
I'm not convinced it's ever disabled, despite all
the garbage Intel provides to fool you.
Intel provided a desktop application that claims to read
out the status and show it is "disabled". But there's no way
for you to know what the Minix is doing down there. Even if you
conduct a study for a day with Wireshark (assuming Wireshark
can even see both heads of the NIC!), the Minix could wait
until you're not present, or detects you're not studying it.
I'm not that paranoid :-D

Maybe it runs, but it does not listen to the network. The port it uses
is known, so just poke at it from outside. You can find out if it
reaches the OS or not.
Post by Paul
If it had a separate quartz crystal to provide a clock signal,
we could ground that and take it out of action. It's not designed
to stop, and if it uses a watchdog to maintain a running status,
may be hard to stop completely. It could, for example, be tied
to the RTC clock (32768Hz) and use a synthesizer to attain
the running clock. Even if the computer is in S5 (FSB clock stopped),
it's still got a clock for itself, so it can awake and do stuff.
Man, just firewall it from the outside. Or don't buy enterprise class
motherboards :-p


The feature is actually used in the enterprise world. Take it to a
friendly group of IT people, and ask them to poke at your computer. I
guess getting a grab at a copy of the software used for this thing is
hard to get. It is possible that hacker communities have software to
poke at it at least, to see if it is alive at least.

Me, I just bought an MAD processor and motherboard recently, but I have
not assembled it. I still need to purchase the RAM. I'll have a peep then.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Aragorn
2019-12-16 20:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
I'm not convinced it's ever disabled, despite all
the garbage Intel provides to fool you.
According to the official Intel documentation, it cannot be disabled,
although it can be made "unreachable" from the NIC.
Post by Paul
Intel provided a desktop application that claims to read
out the status and show it is "disabled". But there's no way
for you to know what the Minix is doing down there. Even if you
conduct a study for a day with Wireshark (assuming Wireshark
can even see both heads of the NIC!), the Minix could wait
until you're not present, or detects you're not studying it.
If it had a separate quartz crystal to provide a clock signal,
we could ground that and take it out of action. It's not designed
to stop, and if it uses a watchdog to maintain a running status,
may be hard to stop completely. It could, for example, be tied
to the RTC clock (32768Hz) and use a synthesizer to attain
the running clock. Even if the computer is in S5 (FSB clock stopped),
it's still got a clock for itself, so it can awake and do stuff.
Yes, that is probably how it works, because the Minix starts running
from the moment the computer is hooked up to the power supply, and it
keeps on running even after the machine itself is powered down.
--
With respect,
= Aragorn =
Carlos E.R.
2019-12-16 22:08:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aragorn
Post by Paul
I'm not convinced it's ever disabled, despite all
the garbage Intel provides to fool you.
According to the official Intel documentation, it cannot be disabled,
although it can be made "unreachable" from the NIC.
That can be enough.
Post by Aragorn
Post by Paul
Intel provided a desktop application that claims to read
out the status and show it is "disabled". But there's no way
for you to know what the Minix is doing down there. Even if you
conduct a study for a day with Wireshark (assuming Wireshark
can even see both heads of the NIC!), the Minix could wait
until you're not present, or detects you're not studying it.
If it had a separate quartz crystal to provide a clock signal,
we could ground that and take it out of action. It's not designed
to stop, and if it uses a watchdog to maintain a running status,
may be hard to stop completely. It could, for example, be tied
to the RTC clock (32768Hz) and use a synthesizer to attain
the running clock. Even if the computer is in S5 (FSB clock stopped),
it's still got a clock for itself, so it can awake and do stuff.
Yes, that is probably how it works, because the Minix starts running
from the moment the computer is hooked up to the power supply, and it
keeps on running even after the machine itself is powered down.
Machine powered down but with the power supply in standby and feeding
some power to the motherboard, so that the IME can tell the PSU to boot
or start the machine. And some keyboards.

So just flip the mains switch.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Jasen Betts
2019-12-20 23:45:35 UTC
Permalink
[IME]
Post by Paul
I'm not convinced it's ever disabled, despite all
the garbage Intel provides to fool you.
Intel provided a desktop application that claims to read
out the status and show it is "disabled". But there's no way
for you to know what the Minix is doing down there. Even if you
conduct a study for a day with Wireshark (assuming Wireshark
can even see both heads of the NIC!), the Minix could wait
until you're not present, or detects you're not studying it.
If it had a separate quartz crystal to provide a clock signal,
we could ground that and take it out of action. It's not designed
to stop, and if it uses a watchdog to maintain a running status,
may be hard to stop completely. It could, for example, be tied
to the RTC clock (32768Hz) and use a synthesizer to attain
the running clock. Even if the computer is in S5 (FSB clock stopped),
it's still got a clock for itself, so it can awake and do stuff.
I have used thes supermicro IPMI which seems to have similar
capabilities to IME. I don't grant IPMI access to the internet, a DHCP
server gives out network parameters that can't reach the internet,
remote management including OS installs are done via ssh tunnel.

With IPMI the device has a distinct MAC address. This may be different
to the way the IME works.
--
Jasen.
Carlos E.R.
2019-12-15 15:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Melzzzzz
I have in VM dual boot Manjaro and Win 10.
Latest Windows update overwrote grub boot file
with something else so that grub entered rescue
mode.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/help-fixing-grub-unknown-filesystem/99429/7
I used different gpt number, but solution worked.
Who gives right to M$ to overwite files in EFI partitition?
1) /boot/efi/EFI/boot/bootx64.efi is not a GRUB boot file. It is the
fallback EFI boot loader, and any OS using the same EFI partition may
overwrite it with its own boot loader anytime. A bit like the MBR for
BIOS boot. You should not rely on it being unchanged when sharing the
EFI partition with other OSes.
2) This cannot cause GRUB entering rescue mode. Partition renumbering or
booting the wrong GRUB core image may.
By the way, there is nothing specific to Manjaro.
Look, system was unbootable after Windows upgrade. I don't have a
problem overwiting boot file, rather that. Unbootable...
It's not a Manjaro problem, or even a linux problem. Windows is the
problem: every version of it does that to every system but another
Windows, in both UEFI and BIOS boots.
Not every version. I have two laptops, one EFI, another MBR, both dual
boot. No issues.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Ned Latham
2019-12-15 15:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Melzzzzz
I have in VM dual boot Manjaro and Win 10.
Latest Windows update overwrote grub boot file
with something else so that grub entered rescue
mode.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/help-fixing-grub-unknown-filesystem/99429/7
I used different gpt number, but solution worked.
Who gives right to M$ to overwite files in EFI partitition?
1) /boot/efi/EFI/boot/bootx64.efi is not a GRUB boot file. It is the
fallback EFI boot loader, and any OS using the same EFI partition may
overwrite it with its own boot loader anytime. A bit like the MBR for
BIOS boot. You should not rely on it being unchanged when sharing the
EFI partition with other OSes.
2) This cannot cause GRUB entering rescue mode. Partition renumbering or
booting the wrong GRUB core image may.
By the way, there is nothing specific to Manjaro.
Look, system was unbootable after Windows upgrade. I don't have a
problem overwiting boot file, rather that. Unbootable...
It's not a Manjaro problem, or even a linux problem. Windows is the
problem: every version of it does that to every system but another
Windows, in both UEFI and BIOS boots.
Not every version. I have two laptops, one EFI, another MBR, both dual
boot. No issues.
If you have to reinstall Windows, it'll trash your boot. Read what
you snipped.
Carlos E.R.
2019-12-15 16:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Melzzzzz
I have in VM dual boot Manjaro and Win 10.
Latest Windows update overwrote grub boot file
with something else so that grub entered rescue
mode.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/help-fixing-grub-unknown-filesystem/99429/7
I used different gpt number, but solution worked.
Who gives right to M$ to overwite files in EFI partitition?
1) /boot/efi/EFI/boot/bootx64.efi is not a GRUB boot file. It is the
fallback EFI boot loader, and any OS using the same EFI partition may
overwrite it with its own boot loader anytime. A bit like the MBR for
BIOS boot. You should not rely on it being unchanged when sharing the
EFI partition with other OSes.
2) This cannot cause GRUB entering rescue mode. Partition renumbering or
booting the wrong GRUB core image may.
By the way, there is nothing specific to Manjaro.
Look, system was unbootable after Windows upgrade. I don't have a
problem overwiting boot file, rather that. Unbootable...
It's not a Manjaro problem, or even a linux problem. Windows is the
problem: every version of it does that to every system but another
Windows, in both UEFI and BIOS boots.
Not every version. I have two laptops, one EFI, another MBR, both dual
boot. No issues.
If you have to reinstall Windows, it'll trash your boot. Read what
you snipped.
Why would I need to reinstall Windows? We are talking of updates. I know
that installations can be problematic. I prefer recovering a backup.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Paul
2019-12-15 18:02:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Melzzzzz
I have in VM dual boot Manjaro and Win 10.
Latest Windows update overwrote grub boot file
with something else so that grub entered rescue
mode.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/help-fixing-grub-unknown-filesystem/99429/7
I used different gpt number, but solution worked.
Who gives right to M$ to overwite files in EFI partitition?
1) /boot/efi/EFI/boot/bootx64.efi is not a GRUB boot file. It is the
fallback EFI boot loader, and any OS using the same EFI partition may
overwrite it with its own boot loader anytime. A bit like the MBR for
BIOS boot. You should not rely on it being unchanged when sharing the
EFI partition with other OSes.
2) This cannot cause GRUB entering rescue mode. Partition renumbering or
booting the wrong GRUB core image may.
By the way, there is nothing specific to Manjaro.
Look, system was unbootable after Windows upgrade. I don't have a
problem overwiting boot file, rather that. Unbootable...
It's not a Manjaro problem, or even a linux problem. Windows is the
problem: every version of it does that to every system but another
Windows, in both UEFI and BIOS boots.
Not every version. I have two laptops, one EFI, another MBR, both dual
boot. No issues.
If you have to reinstall Windows, it'll trash your boot. Read what
you snipped.
It actually doesn't.

Windows 10 is different. It has a different policy.

The table manners of Linux and Windows 10, are now the same.

I would recommend to Mr.Melzzzzz that he verify the structure
of his EFI is correct. I've run into a problem before, where
for some reason, the proper directory structure was not in
the EFI System Partition, and all manner of bad things
then happened when installing additional OSes. It was
a mess.

This is what I see today.

Loading Image...

/dev/sda2 (ESP FAT)
/efi
Microsoft
Boot
Ubuntu

First thing this morning, I did sudo install-grub /dev/sda

This resulted in file dates being stamped in Boot and Ubuntu.

Then, I chain-loaded Windows and ran the Patch Tuesday update
for December. Two files in the Microsoft folder above,
had their date stamp changed. The system continues to
boot to GRUB, which implies the early stages of GRUB
were not modified by Patch Tuesday.

Windows Update is currently bringing in 18362 (1909) to take
the place of a previous Windows 10 OS version (17763.914).
OK, I installed it, and had to attend the GRUB menu
on each reboot to cursor down and select the Windows entry,
so Windows would start, and GRUB is still in control when
the Upgrade install finished.

If either OS does a Clean Install (boot DVD, install),
I would expect both of them to modify boot materials,
scan for OSes as they choose, and build a boot menu. I
don't need to test that, to know they both screw around.

Based on two test cases here, on real hardware, I'm
not seeing any unexpected behavior.

Note that the UEFI behavior of VirtualBox at least, is
far from perfect. I no longer consider that a candidate
for verifying UEFI/GPT in a VM. I'm not really all that
crazy for VMWare either, but it's just the level of
interference with what I'm doing that drives me away
from that.

So whatever happened to my ESP on one occasion, the folder
structure was missing and the OSes would take turns trashing
the (shared) set of files.

If I was working within VirtualBox today, I would select
MSDOS partitioning before setting up a dual boot. There will
be fewer surprises.

Paul
Jasen Betts
2019-12-21 05:43:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Windows Update is currently bringing in 18362 (1909) to take
the place of a previous Windows 10 OS version (17763.914).
OK, I installed it, and had to attend the GRUB menu
on each reboot to cursor down and select the Windows entry,
so Windows would start, and GRUB is still in control when
the Upgrade install finished.
I think you can set the default in the boot-time grub menu.

I used to use grub command "lock linux" to bypass the menu,
but I think there's a lighter-weight option that just sets
the default, (but lock can be interrupted by holding shift
or ctrl or something) this could save you from having to be
present for the entire reboot party, but would require you
to undo it subsequently.
--
Jasen.
Java Jive
2019-12-21 12:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jasen Betts
Post by Paul
Windows Update is currently bringing in 18362 (1909) to take
the place of a previous Windows 10 OS version (17763.914).
OK, I installed it, and had to attend the GRUB menu
on each reboot to cursor down and select the Windows entry,
so Windows would start, and GRUB is still in control when
the Upgrade install finished.
I think you can set the default in the boot-time grub menu.
I used to use grub command "lock linux" to bypass the menu,
but I think there's a lighter-weight option that just sets
the default, (but lock can be interrupted by holding shift
or ctrl or something) this could save you from having to be
present for the entire reboot party, but would require you
to undo it subsequently.
You can set GRUB to remember and set as default for the next boot the
user's choice on the current boot. That way you only need use the GRUB
menu when you want to load a *different* OS from last time. Personally,
this is one of the first things I set when installing Linux to dual-boot
with Windows.

Either as root or a sudo prompt ...

In /etc/default/grub add a line ...
GRUB_SAVEDEFAULT=true
... and alter ...
GRUB_DEFAULT=n # where n is some integer
... to ...
GRUB_DEFAULT=saved

I also change the timeouts as well.

Then run:
update-grub
William Poaster
2019-12-15 22:18:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Pascal Hambourg
I have in VM dual boot Manjaro and Win 10. Latest Windows update
overwrote grub boot file with something else so that grub entered
rescue mode.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/help-fixing-grub-unknown-filesystem/99429/7
I used different gpt number, but solution worked. Who gives right to
M$ to overwite files in EFI partitition?
1) /boot/efi/EFI/boot/bootx64.efi is not a GRUB boot file. It is the
fallback EFI boot loader, and any OS using the same EFI partition may
overwrite it with its own boot loader anytime. A bit like the MBR for
BIOS boot. You should not rely on it being unchanged when sharing the
EFI partition with other OSes.
2) This cannot cause GRUB entering rescue mode. Partition renumbering
or booting the wrong GRUB core image may.
By the way, there is nothing specific to Manjaro.
Look, system was unbootable after Windows upgrade. I don't have a
problem overwiting boot file, rather that. Unbootable...
It's not a Manjaro problem, or even a linux problem. Windows is the
problem: every version of it does that to every system but another
Windows, in both UEFI and BIOS boots.
1. Install Windows before anything else. 2. Then make your system usable
and powerful by installing a real OS.
a. boot from your real OS's install disc; b. mount the system drive and
cd to its etc directory c. execute your boot loader, giving it the
mount address
of its configuration file.
An even simpler fix: DON'T install Win 10.
Or if you *have* to install that abomination, install it in a VM.
Kenny McCormack
2019-12-15 13:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Melzzzzz
I have in VM dual boot Manjaro and Win 10.
Latest Windows update overwrote grub boot file
with something else so that grub entered rescue
mode.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/help-fixing-grub-unknown-filesystem/99429/7
I used different gpt number, but solution worked.
Who gives right to M$ to overwite files in EFI partitition?
1) /boot/efi/EFI/boot/bootx64.efi is not a GRUB boot file. It is the
fallback EFI boot loader, and any OS using the same EFI partition may
overwrite it with its own boot loader anytime. A bit like the MBR for
BIOS boot. You should not rely on it being unchanged when sharing the
EFI partition with other OSes.
2) This cannot cause GRUB entering rescue mode. Partition renumbering or
booting the wrong GRUB core image may.
By the way, there is nothing specific to Manjaro.
Look, system was unbootable after Windows upgrade. I don't have a
problem overwiting boot file, rather that. Unbootable...
I think if you install "Windows 10", you deserve what you get.

And get what you deserve.
--
There are two kinds of Republicans: Billionaires and suckers.
Republicans: Please check your bank account and decide which one is you.
Pascal Hambourg
2019-12-22 10:02:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Melzzzzz
I have in VM dual boot Manjaro and Win 10.
Latest Windows update overwrote grub boot file
with something else so that grub entered rescue
mode.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/help-fixing-grub-unknown-filesystem/99429/7
I used different gpt number, but solution worked.
Who gives right to M$ to overwite files in EFI partitition?
1) /boot/efi/EFI/boot/bootx64.efi is not a GRUB boot file. It is the
fallback EFI boot loader, and any OS using the same EFI partition may
overwrite it with its own boot loader anytime. A bit like the MBR for
BIOS boot. You should not rely on it being unchanged when sharing the
EFI partition with other OSes.
2) This cannot cause GRUB entering rescue mode. Partition renumbering or
booting the wrong GRUB core image may.
By the way, there is nothing specific to Manjaro.
Look, system was unbootable after Windows upgrade. I don't have a
problem overwiting boot file, rather that. Unbootable...
"Paul" confirmed experimentally that Windows upgrade could renumber
partitions in his post dated Thu, 19 Dec 2019 03:26:10 -0500.
Steve Carroll
2019-12-22 11:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Melzzzzz
I have in VM dual boot Manjaro and Win 10.
Latest Windows update overwrote grub boot file
with something else so that grub entered rescue
mode.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/help-fixing-grub-unknown-filesystem/99429/7
I used different gpt number, but solution worked.
Who gives right to M$ to overwite files in EFI partitition?
1) /boot/efi/EFI/boot/bootx64.efi is not a GRUB boot file. It is the
fallback EFI boot loader, and any OS using the same EFI partition may
overwrite it with its own boot loader anytime. A bit like the MBR for
BIOS boot. You should not rely on it being unchanged when sharing the
EFI partition with other OSes.
2) This cannot cause GRUB entering rescue mode. Partition renumbering or
booting the wrong GRUB core image may.
By the way, there is nothing specific to Manjaro.
Look, system was unbootable after Windows upgrade. I don't have a
problem overwiting boot file, rather that. Unbootable...
"Paul" confirmed experimentally that Windows upgrade could renumber
partitions in his post dated Thu, 19 Dec 2019 03:26:10 -0500.
I am a complete devotee of Cooledit, because that's where all the stimulating ingenuity is happening.

No-one gets it, I ain't done gone got it. Joel's posts are nothing but a meaningless word salad.

Now let us see knows PHP, is an IT "master", has stolen Marek Novotny's account, has motive and is a huge tantrum throwing man-child who, when he gets a bad case of narcissistic rage/injury going, posts endless nonsense even when he's *not* flooding... AND... who endeavors to attributes everything HE is doing on "advocates" and has for his whole life?

I mostly go argument by argument unless someone has a habit of really extreme flooding. With Joel, I already realize what his approach is, all he dreams of is to 'win' and, sadly, he will do ANYTHING to get it. His never ending routine is to play 'martyr' but reality shows it's all of his targets who are his targets. You haven't been around to understand the depths of the guy's lechery.

It's a decades long conflict, and Joel is simultaneously a master at off-the-cuff trolling remarks, while posting with forgeries of Marek Novotny.



--
"You'll notice how quickly he loses interest when everything is about him. He clearly wants the attention"
Steve Carroll, making the dumbest comment ever uttered.
Paul
2019-12-17 01:43:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Melzzzzz
I have in VM dual boot Manjaro and Win 10.
Latest Windows update overwrote grub boot file
with something else so that grub entered rescue
mode.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/help-fixing-grub-unknown-filesystem/99429/7
I used different gpt number, but solution worked.
Who gives right to M$ to overwite files in EFI partitition?
What fuckers.
It turns out there are more issues than meet
the eye in this matter. Manjaro seems to have a
fair amount of trouble when it comes to GRUB installing.

VirtualBox 6.0.14
Windows 10 17763 (so it can be updated later as a test case)
Latest Manjaro

So I tried to install Manjaro.

Using the LiveDVD, the install finished... and the virtual machine
booted to Windows. I took a look, and there was *no sign* that
a GRUB install had been attempted. And I don't remember a tick
box in there, saying "don't install GRUB".

I tried to use Architect from the LiveDVD, to install grub.
This failed. A google reveals that it might work if
Architect is used from its own 700MB ISO. OK, so I download
that. It has a separate menu item where the sundry items
are mounted (sda6 is my /, sda2 is my ESP with EFI stuff in it,
sda5 was my swap, the others were windows items).

I finally get a structure that looks reasonable in the ESP.

Loading Image...

Now the fun starts.

I boot the Windows 10 side of my dual-boot VM. I use
VirtualBox Additions to install a video driver. This
requires a reboot of Windows 10.

Well, guess what happens. The VM avoids the Manjaro
GRUB menu and boots directly into Windows! And it's just
a driver update.

If you shut down the VM, then open it again, Manjaro
and GRUB take over again. The "feature" seems to be
done without changing GRUB materials. It relies on you
doing a "warm reboot" without closing the VirtualBox
window for the dual-boot VM.

Now, the next surprise, is I decide to "dd" the MBR for
a look. And the "file" command tells me it is a
Windows 7 MBR (has three error messages that exist
in Windows-flavored MBRs).

So how does that work ? I'm getting to the Manjaro GRUB menu

Loading Image...

but the MBR contains a Windows boot stage ???

And I *could not* convince Manjaro to overwrite the
MBR boot materials either. Windows 10 must have put
that MBR there, but Manjaro won't touch it. Even with
the usage of install-grub.

The Windows 10 BCD file (dumped using bcdedit /enum)
shows no trace that Windows knows it is messing with
GRUB. It's not keeping records of anything, and
looking at the contents of the BCD, for all the
world, the Windows OS thinks it is alone. That's why
I can only guess that somehow the NVRAM paths play
a part in this somehow.

And Boot-Repair reporter, I don't think it noticed
the Windows MBR.

So if you think Windows has "taken over", close the window,
open the window again, and see if your Manjaro menu comes back.

The state mine is in right now, doesn't seem correct
to me, but I don't know how to make install-grub
do what it is supposed to do. This assumes the MBR is still
the first stage of booting - maybe it isn't ???

Paul
David W. Hodgins
2019-12-17 04:40:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Using the LiveDVD, the install finished... and the virtual machine
booted to Windows. I took a look, and there was *no sign* that
a GRUB install had been attempted. And I don't remember a tick
box in there, saying "don't install GRUB".
See https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Mageia_in_dual_boot_with_Windows8_and_over#Troubleshooting
though you will have to adapt it for Mangaro instead.

Regards, Dave Hodgins
--
Change ***@nomail.afraid.org to ***@teksavvy.com for
email replies.
Carlos E.R.
2019-12-17 13:30:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Melzzzzz
I have in VM dual boot Manjaro and Win 10.
Latest Windows update overwrote grub boot file
with something else so that grub entered rescue
mode.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/help-fixing-grub-unknown-filesystem/99429/7
I used different gpt number, but solution worked.
Who gives right to M$ to overwite files in EFI partitition?
What fuckers.
It turns out there are more issues than meet
the eye in this matter. Manjaro seems to have a
fair amount of trouble when it comes to GRUB installing.
   VirtualBox 6.0.14
      Windows 10 17763 (so it can be updated later as a test case)
      Latest Manjaro
So I tried to install Manjaro.
Using the LiveDVD, the install finished... and the virtual machine
booted to Windows. I took a look, and there was *no sign* that
a GRUB install had been attempted. And I don't remember a tick
box in there, saying "don't install GRUB".
I tried to use Architect from the LiveDVD, to install grub.
This failed. A google reveals that it might work if
Architect is used from its own 700MB ISO. OK, so I download
that. It has a separate menu item where the sundry items
are mounted (sda6 is my /, sda2 is my ESP with EFI stuff in it,
sda5 was my swap, the others were windows items).
I finally get a structure that looks reasonable in the ESP.
https://i.postimg.cc/ry0BDD2q/manjaro-ESP-files.gif
Now the fun starts.
I boot the Windows 10 side of my dual-boot VM. I use
VirtualBox Additions to install a video driver. This
requires a reboot of Windows 10.
Well, guess what happens. The VM avoids the Manjaro
GRUB menu and boots directly into Windows! And it's just
a driver update.
It is possibly a warm boot, that avoids reading the disk boot structure,
starting on the EFI partition. Well, I'd say this is a nice feature on
double boot: When I'm updating the windows side and it reboots, I wants
windows again, not Linux, so that it ends the second update stage that
happens during windows boot.
Post by Paul
If you shut down the VM, then open it again, Manjaro
and GRUB take over again. The "feature" seems to be
done without changing GRUB materials. It relies on you
doing a "warm reboot" without closing the VirtualBox
window for the dual-boot VM.
Now, the next surprise, is I decide to "dd" the MBR for
a look. And the "file" command tells me it is a
Windows 7 MBR (has three error messages that exist
in Windows-flavored MBRs).
So how does that work ? I'm getting to the Manjaro GRUB menu
https://i.postimg.cc/0ynkVzNL/manjaro-grub-menu.gif
but the MBR contains a Windows boot stage ???
And I *could not* convince Manjaro to overwrite the
MBR boot materials either. Windows 10 must have put
that MBR there, but Manjaro won't touch it. Even with
the usage of install-grub.
No, my guess is that it was written by Architect when repairing the
grub, or earlier by manjaro install.
Post by Paul
The Windows 10 BCD file (dumped using bcdedit /enum)
shows no trace that Windows knows it is messing with
GRUB. It's not keeping records of anything, and
looking at the contents of the BCD, for all the
world, the Windows OS thinks it is alone. That's why
I can only guess that somehow the NVRAM paths play
a part in this somehow.
And Boot-Repair reporter, I don't think it noticed
the Windows MBR.
So if you think Windows has "taken over", close the window,
open the window again, and see if your Manjaro menu comes back.
The state mine is in right now, doesn't seem correct
to me, but I don't know how to make install-grub
do what it is supposed to do. This assumes the MBR is still
the first stage of booting - maybe it isn't ???
There are two main ways to make grub work.

In an MBR based boot scheme, grub initial stage is written to the MBR,
and then it loads the other stages from "other" places.

OR, the MBR is a generic MBR, or the Windows MBR, which boots whatever
partition is marked bootable, and this partition has Grub in its boot
sector.

OR, its is a GPT disk with an EFI partition, and it is the EFI code
which then decides to boot whatever partition is selected to boot. There
is a little menu to decide that should show before grub menu. If not,
there are programs to change the boot order.

To analyze the boot sequence from Linux, I recommend this script:

<https://github.com/arvidjaar/bootinfoscript/raw/master/bootinfoscript>

Download and install to /root/bin/, for example. Run and upload
resulting file on some paste site somewhere. Posting here would probably
wrap lines, but you can do that, with a client that doesn't wrap long lines.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Paul
2019-12-19 08:26:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Paul
Post by Melzzzzz
I have in VM dual boot Manjaro and Win 10.
Latest Windows update overwrote grub boot file
with something else so that grub entered rescue
mode.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/help-fixing-grub-unknown-filesystem/99429/7
I used different gpt number, but solution worked.
Who gives right to M$ to overwite files in EFI partitition?
What fuckers.
It turns out there are more issues than meet
the eye in this matter. Manjaro seems to have a
fair amount of trouble when it comes to GRUB installing.
VirtualBox 6.0.14
Windows 10 17763 (so it can be updated later as a test case)
Latest Manjaro
So I tried to install Manjaro.
Using the LiveDVD, the install finished... and the virtual machine
booted to Windows. I took a look, and there was *no sign* that
a GRUB install had been attempted. And I don't remember a tick
box in there, saying "don't install GRUB".
I tried to use Architect from the LiveDVD, to install grub.
This failed. A google reveals that it might work if
Architect is used from its own 700MB ISO. OK, so I download
that. It has a separate menu item where the sundry items
are mounted (sda6 is my /, sda2 is my ESP with EFI stuff in it,
sda5 was my swap, the others were windows items).
I finally get a structure that looks reasonable in the ESP.
https://i.postimg.cc/ry0BDD2q/manjaro-ESP-files.gif
Now the fun starts.
I boot the Windows 10 side of my dual-boot VM. I use
VirtualBox Additions to install a video driver. This
requires a reboot of Windows 10.
Well, guess what happens. The VM avoids the Manjaro
GRUB menu and boots directly into Windows! And it's just
a driver update.
It is possibly a warm boot, that avoids reading the disk boot structure,
starting on the EFI partition. Well, I'd say this is a nice feature on
double boot: When I'm updating the windows side and it reboots, I wants
windows again, not Linux, so that it ends the second update stage that
happens during windows boot.
I think there are signs the OSes are using efibootmgr
to modify the NVRAM and change what is presented at least,
on the popup boot screen.

For example, I installed some OSes as a test case, and the
Mint partition got listed identically twice in the popup boot
menu as a UEFI option. This is naughty, and some logic
somewhere is screwing up. This never used to happen (before
Manjaro was shown to the computer).
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Paul
If you shut down the VM, then open it again, Manjaro
and GRUB take over again. The "feature" seems to be
done without changing GRUB materials. It relies on you
doing a "warm reboot" without closing the VirtualBox
window for the dual-boot VM.
Now, the next surprise, is I decide to "dd" the MBR for
a look. And the "file" command tells me it is a
Windows 7 MBR (has three error messages that exist
in Windows-flavored MBRs).
So how does that work ? I'm getting to the Manjaro GRUB menu
https://i.postimg.cc/0ynkVzNL/manjaro-grub-menu.gif
but the MBR contains a Windows boot stage ???
And I *could not* convince Manjaro to overwrite the
MBR boot materials either. Windows 10 must have put
that MBR there, but Manjaro won't touch it. Even with
the usage of install-grub.
No, my guess is that it was written by Architect when repairing the
grub, or earlier by manjaro install.
Actually, my testing has revealed that for UEFI boot materials,
there is hardly any interest in writing the 440 byte section
of the MBR. Windows will do it, if Windows UEFI is the first
OS to touch the disk. Once the AA55 flag is in the MBR, Windows
stops caring about the 440 byte section. Neither Ubuntu nor Manjaro
is interested in loading up the 440 byte section of the MBR either.

When Windows is the first OS on the disk, all that writing that
boot loader does, is installs the first boot phase of legacy
boot. I never saw any signs this was making a difference.
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Paul
The Windows 10 BCD file (dumped using bcdedit /enum)
shows no trace that Windows knows it is messing with
GRUB. It's not keeping records of anything, and
looking at the contents of the BCD, for all the
world, the Windows OS thinks it is alone. That's why
I can only guess that somehow the NVRAM paths play
a part in this somehow.
And Boot-Repair reporter, I don't think it noticed
the Windows MBR.
So if you think Windows has "taken over", close the window,
open the window again, and see if your Manjaro menu comes back.
The state mine is in right now, doesn't seem correct
to me, but I don't know how to make install-grub
do what it is supposed to do. This assumes the MBR is still
the first stage of booting - maybe it isn't ???
There are two main ways to make grub work.
In an MBR based boot scheme, grub initial stage is written to the MBR,
and then it loads the other stages from "other" places.
OR, the MBR is a generic MBR, or the Windows MBR, which boots whatever
partition is marked bootable, and this partition has Grub in its boot
sector.
OR, its is a GPT disk with an EFI partition, and it is the EFI code
which then decides to boot whatever partition is selected to boot. There
is a little menu to decide that should show before grub menu. If not,
there are programs to change the boot order.
<https://github.com/arvidjaar/bootinfoscript/raw/master/bootinfoscript>
Download and install to /root/bin/, for example. Run and upload
resulting file on some paste site somewhere. Posting here would probably
wrap lines, but you can do that, with a client that doesn't wrap long lines.
The bootinfoscript did help. I couldn't see a way to do it from
Manjaro (a pacman search didn't list it), so I did it from Linux Mint
on the same hard drive.

My test case for today, was to do the multiboot test on a physical
disk, instead of VirtualBox, and I got slightly different results.

1) Installed Linux Mint in UEFI mode.

2) Installed Windows 10 in UEFI mode.
This was to check whether Windows would write the MBR,
and it does not. It enters stuff in the Microsoft folder
of the ESP. I fully expected Windows to take over at this point,
but I didn't care to test Linux Mint or recover grub. I don't
think Clean Installs like this, will have a happy ending in
any case.

3) Installed Manjaro.
Made /dev/sda2 (ESP) equal /boot/efi.
Manjaro adds its folder to what it thinks is /boot/efi/EFI/Manjaro,
but this is part of the Linux need to arrange /, /boot, /boot/grub
in an orderly way.

4) Let Windows 10 update itself from 17063 to 18363.
Aha! Broke the boot. Manjaro tried to boot. And the error was...

error: unknown filesystem. grub

and the temporary fix is like this.

set root=(hd0,7)
set prefix=(hd0,7)/boot/grub
insmod normal
normal

Mop up by running bootinfoscript and getting a recording
of the failed conditions.

5) To "fix it", it's the usual thing.

Enter Manjaro again using the temp fix.

set root=(hd0,7)
set prefix=(hd0,7)/boot/grub
insmod normal
normal

sudo grub-install /dev/sda
sudo update-grub

reboot

success.

Mop up by running bootinfoscript and getting a recording
of the successful conditions.

6) do a diff on the two bootinfoscript outputs.

456c456
< set root='hd0,gpt6'
---
Post by Carlos E.R.
set root='hd0,gpt7'
A partition number has changed, between the two runs.
So the grub info being used, points at the wrong partition
as some sort of hint.

Now, review the partition layout. Without going into
unnecessary detail, my install looks like this.

MBR Linux Mint Windows 10 Manjaro

The thing is, when Windows 10 does Upgrade Installs, it has
a bad habit of resizing C: about 500MB smaller, and creating
a small partition to the right of C: . This causes the
partition numbering to change. This is a disaster in the
making, for the Linux OS *to the right* of Windows 10.

So it's not actually writing /boot/efi/EFI/name_of_OS
with new EFI files.

Instead, it trashes the setup by messing around with
partitions, and the other OSes on the disk (any OSes
*to the right* of C: ) will be affected. Their partition
number changes, and something about the GRUB setup
is still using partition numbers. Even though the
FSTAB is defensively designed with UUID or BLKID or
whatever.

So how can you keep Manjaro happy on Windows 10 ?
Put it to the left of Windows 10 like this.

MBR Manjaro Windows 10

And you have to install it that way, as attempting
to push partitions around with GPARTED is bound to
end in hair loss.

Once you do that, you *should* find that it behaves
mostly without permanent damage. If it uses Fast Boot,
well, turn Fast Boot off. If it warm boots right back
into Windows 10, it's doing that because it's finishing
updates. Shutting down the VM should allow it to come
back up in Manjaro mode. On a physical disk, you should
see a similar behavior (a shutdown leads to an orderly
startup managed by GRUB again).

If Windows 10 does the 20H1 Upgrade Install next year,
as long as Windows 10 is to the right of your Linux
OSes, maybe there won't be a disaster. At least,
for the boot failure I got on my test setup.

Paul
Carlos E.R.
2019-12-19 19:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Paul
Post by Melzzzzz
I have in VM dual boot Manjaro and Win 10.
Latest Windows update overwrote grub boot file
with something else so that grub entered rescue
mode.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/help-fixing-grub-unknown-filesystem/99429/7
I used different gpt number, but solution worked.
Who gives right to M$ to overwite files in EFI partitition?
What fuckers.
It turns out there are more issues than meet
the eye in this matter. Manjaro seems to have a
fair amount of trouble when it comes to GRUB installing.
   VirtualBox 6.0.14
      Windows 10 17763 (so it can be updated later as a test case)
      Latest Manjaro
So I tried to install Manjaro.
Using the LiveDVD, the install finished... and the virtual machine
booted to Windows. I took a look, and there was *no sign* that
a GRUB install had been attempted. And I don't remember a tick
box in there, saying "don't install GRUB".
I tried to use Architect from the LiveDVD, to install grub.
This failed. A google reveals that it might work if
Architect is used from its own 700MB ISO. OK, so I download
that. It has a separate menu item where the sundry items
are mounted (sda6 is my /, sda2 is my ESP with EFI stuff in it,
sda5 was my swap, the others were windows items).
I finally get a structure that looks reasonable in the ESP.
https://i.postimg.cc/ry0BDD2q/manjaro-ESP-files.gif
Now the fun starts.
I boot the Windows 10 side of my dual-boot VM. I use
VirtualBox Additions to install a video driver. This
requires a reboot of Windows 10.
Well, guess what happens. The VM avoids the Manjaro
GRUB menu and boots directly into Windows! And it's just
a driver update.
It is possibly a warm boot, that avoids reading the disk boot structure,
starting on the EFI partition. Well, I'd say this is a nice feature on
double boot: When I'm updating the windows side and it reboots, I wants
windows again, not Linux, so that it ends the second update stage that
happens during windows boot.
I think there are signs the OSes are using efibootmgr
to modify the NVRAM and change what is presented at least,
on the popup boot screen.
For example, I installed some OSes as a test case, and the
Mint partition got listed identically twice in the popup boot
menu as a UEFI option. This is naughty, and some logic
somewhere is screwing up. This never used to happen (before
Manjaro was shown to the computer).
Not that rare. Three openSUSE entries:

Isengard:~ # efibootmgr
BootCurrent: 0005
Timeout: 6 seconds
BootOrder: 0005,0001,0004,0002,0003,0000,0006,0007,0008
Boot0000 Windows Boot Manager
Boot0001* opensuse
Boot0002* UEFI: IP4 Realtek PCIe GBE Family Controller
Boot0003* UEFI: IP6 Realtek PCIe GBE Family Controller
Boot0004* opensuse-secureboot
Boot0005* opensuse
Boot0006* UEFI:CD/DVD Drive
Boot0007* UEFI:Removable Device
Boot0008* UEFI:Network Device
Isengard:~ #


Also see the Windows entry first of all. There's never being Windows in
that machine. Nor a CD, it is a mini computer.
Post by Paul
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Paul
If you shut down the VM, then open it again, Manjaro
and GRUB take over again. The "feature" seems to be
done without changing GRUB materials. It relies on you
doing a "warm reboot" without closing the VirtualBox
window for the dual-boot VM.
Now, the next surprise, is I decide to "dd" the MBR for
a look. And the "file" command tells me it is a
Windows 7 MBR (has three error messages that exist
in Windows-flavored MBRs).
So how does that work ? I'm getting to the Manjaro GRUB menu
https://i.postimg.cc/0ynkVzNL/manjaro-grub-menu.gif
but the MBR contains a Windows boot stage ???
And I *could not* convince Manjaro to overwrite the
MBR boot materials either. Windows 10 must have put
that MBR there, but Manjaro won't touch it. Even with
the usage of install-grub.
No, my guess is that it was written by Architect when repairing the
grub, or earlier by manjaro install.
Actually, my testing has revealed that for UEFI boot materials,
there is hardly any interest in writing the 440 byte section
of the MBR. Windows will do it, if Windows UEFI is the first
OS to touch the disk. Once the AA55 flag is in the MBR, Windows
stops caring about the 440 byte section. Neither Ubuntu nor Manjaro
is interested in loading up the 440 byte section of the MBR either.
When Windows is the first OS on the disk, all that writing that
boot loader does, is installs the first boot phase of legacy
boot. I never saw any signs this was making a difference.
Yeah, in EFI mode the MBR code is irrelevant.

...
Post by Paul
Post by Carlos E.R.
<https://github.com/arvidjaar/bootinfoscript/raw/master/bootinfoscript>
Download and install to /root/bin/, for example. Run and upload
resulting file on some paste site somewhere. Posting here would probably
wrap lines, but you can do that, with a client that doesn't wrap long lines.
The bootinfoscript did help. I couldn't see a way to do it from
Manjaro (a pacman search didn't list it), so I did it from Linux Mint
on the same hard drive.
You can simply download and copy it to /root/bin. It is just a single
script, one file.
Post by Paul
My test case for today, was to do the multiboot test on a physical
disk, instead of VirtualBox, and I got slightly different results.
1) Installed Linux Mint in UEFI mode.
2) Installed Windows 10 in UEFI mode.
   This was to check whether Windows would write the MBR,
   and it does not. It enters stuff in the Microsoft folder
   of the ESP. I fully expected Windows to take over at this point,
   but I didn't care to test Linux Mint or recover grub. I don't
   think Clean Installs like this, will have a happy ending in
   any case.
I did many tests installing Windows Server 2008, either after or before
Linux, during a training. It fully respected what was already installed,
if I paid attention to the configuration entries. I could install it on
any partition. On an MBR machine.

My guess is it is OEM install media which do things like claiming the
disk or the boot. Not the original Windows media. If not that, then the
Server install media is much different.
Post by Paul
3) Installed Manjaro.
   Made /dev/sda2 (ESP) equal /boot/efi.
   Manjaro adds its folder to what it thinks is /boot/efi/EFI/Manjaro,
   but this is part of the Linux need to arrange /, /boot, /boot/grub
   in an orderly way.
4) Let Windows 10 update itself from 17063 to 18363.
   Aha! Broke the boot. Manjaro tried to boot. And the error was...
   error: unknown filesystem. grub
   and the temporary fix is like this.
   set root=(hd0,7)
   set prefix=(hd0,7)/boot/grub
   insmod normal
   normal
   Mop up by running bootinfoscript and getting a recording
   of the failed conditions.
5) To "fix it", it's the usual thing.
   Enter Manjaro again using the temp fix.
   set root=(hd0,7)
   set prefix=(hd0,7)/boot/grub
   insmod normal
   normal
   sudo grub-install /dev/sda
   sudo update-grub
   reboot
   success.
   Mop up by running bootinfoscript and getting a recording
   of the successful conditions.
6) do a diff on the two bootinfoscript outputs.
   456c456
   < set root='hd0,gpt6'
   ---
   > set root='hd0,gpt7'
   A partition number has changed, between the two runs.
   So the grub info being used, points at the wrong partition
   as some sort of hint.
Ah! Rather it may be manjaro fault for not using UUIDs in the grub
config. The 'hd0,gpt6' should be a hint, not a definitive entry.


Like this, in my /boot/grub2/grub.cfg

]> set root='hd0,gpt4'
]> if [ x$feature_platform_search_hint = xy ]; then
]> search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root
--hint-bios=hd4,gpt4 --hint-efi=hd4,gpt4 --hint-baremetal=ahci4,gpt4
--hint='hd0,gpt4' a977c5c3-....
]> else
]> search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root a977c5c3-.......
]> fi
Post by Paul
Now, review the partition layout. Without going into
unnecessary detail, my install looks like this.
MBR   Linux Mint    Windows 10   Manjaro
The thing is, when Windows 10 does Upgrade Installs, it has
a bad habit of resizing C: about 500MB smaller, and creating
a small partition to the right of C: . This causes the
partition numbering to change. This is a disaster in the
making, for the Linux OS *to the right* of Windows 10.
To any OS there, yes.
Post by Paul
So it's not actually writing /boot/efi/EFI/name_of_OS
with new EFI files.
Right.
Post by Paul
Instead, it trashes the setup by messing around with
partitions, and the other OSes on the disk (any OSes
*to the right* of C: ) will be affected. Their partition
number changes, and something about the GRUB setup
is still using partition numbers. Even though the
FSTAB is defensively designed with UUID or BLKID or
whatever.
So how can you keep Manjaro happy on Windows 10 ?
Put it to the left of Windows 10 like this.
MBR   Manjaro    Windows 10
And you have to install it that way, as attempting
to push partitions around with GPARTED is bound to
end in hair loss.
Once you do that, you *should* find that it behaves
mostly without permanent damage. If it uses Fast Boot,
well, turn Fast Boot off.
It has an habit of returning.
Post by Paul
If it warm boots right back
into Windows 10, it's doing that because it's finishing
updates. Shutting down the VM should allow it to come
back up in Manjaro mode. On a physical disk, you should
see a similar behavior (a shutdown leads to an orderly
startup managed by GRUB again).
If Windows 10 does the 20H1 Upgrade Install next year,
as long as Windows 10 is to the right of your Linux
OSes, maybe there won't be a disaster. At least,
for the boot failure I got on my test setup.
   Paul
Right. If not, just be aware that it can happen. But I assume that extra
partition is created just once.

Both my laptops came with Windows installed and I left it there, just
made the partition smaller. So Windows is "before" in the disk. This
will be typical for many people.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Paul
2019-12-21 02:32:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Paul
Post by Melzzzzz
I have in VM dual boot Manjaro and Win 10.
Latest Windows update overwrote grub boot file
with something else so that grub entered rescue
mode.
https://forum.manjaro.org/t/help-fixing-grub-unknown-filesystem/99429/7
I used different gpt number, but solution worked.
Who gives right to M$ to overwite files in EFI partitition?
What fuckers.
It turns out there are more issues than meet
the eye in this matter. Manjaro seems to have a
fair amount of trouble when it comes to GRUB installing.
VirtualBox 6.0.14
Windows 10 17763 (so it can be updated later as a test case)
Latest Manjaro
So I tried to install Manjaro.
Using the LiveDVD, the install finished... and the virtual machine
booted to Windows. I took a look, and there was *no sign* that
a GRUB install had been attempted. And I don't remember a tick
box in there, saying "don't install GRUB".
I tried to use Architect from the LiveDVD, to install grub.
This failed. A google reveals that it might work if
Architect is used from its own 700MB ISO. OK, so I download
that. It has a separate menu item where the sundry items
are mounted (sda6 is my /, sda2 is my ESP with EFI stuff in it,
sda5 was my swap, the others were windows items).
I finally get a structure that looks reasonable in the ESP.
https://i.postimg.cc/ry0BDD2q/manjaro-ESP-files.gif
Now the fun starts.
I boot the Windows 10 side of my dual-boot VM. I use
VirtualBox Additions to install a video driver. This
requires a reboot of Windows 10.
Well, guess what happens. The VM avoids the Manjaro
GRUB menu and boots directly into Windows! And it's just
a driver update.
It is possibly a warm boot, that avoids reading the disk boot structure,
starting on the EFI partition. Well, I'd say this is a nice feature on
double boot: When I'm updating the windows side and it reboots, I wants
windows again, not Linux, so that it ends the second update stage that
happens during windows boot.
I think there are signs the OSes are using efibootmgr
to modify the NVRAM and change what is presented at least,
on the popup boot screen.
For example, I installed some OSes as a test case, and the
Mint partition got listed identically twice in the popup boot
menu as a UEFI option. This is naughty, and some logic
somewhere is screwing up. This never used to happen (before
Manjaro was shown to the computer).
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Paul
If you shut down the VM, then open it again, Manjaro
and GRUB take over again. The "feature" seems to be
done without changing GRUB materials. It relies on you
doing a "warm reboot" without closing the VirtualBox
window for the dual-boot VM.
Now, the next surprise, is I decide to "dd" the MBR for
a look. And the "file" command tells me it is a
Windows 7 MBR (has three error messages that exist
in Windows-flavored MBRs).
So how does that work ? I'm getting to the Manjaro GRUB menu
https://i.postimg.cc/0ynkVzNL/manjaro-grub-menu.gif
but the MBR contains a Windows boot stage ???
And I *could not* convince Manjaro to overwrite the
MBR boot materials either. Windows 10 must have put
that MBR there, but Manjaro won't touch it. Even with
the usage of install-grub.
No, my guess is that it was written by Architect when repairing the
grub, or earlier by manjaro install.
Actually, my testing has revealed that for UEFI boot materials,
there is hardly any interest in writing the 440 byte section
of the MBR. Windows will do it, if Windows UEFI is the first
OS to touch the disk. Once the AA55 flag is in the MBR, Windows
stops caring about the 440 byte section. Neither Ubuntu nor Manjaro
is interested in loading up the 440 byte section of the MBR either.
When Windows is the first OS on the disk, all that writing that
boot loader does, is installs the first boot phase of legacy
boot. I never saw any signs this was making a difference.
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Paul
The Windows 10 BCD file (dumped using bcdedit /enum)
shows no trace that Windows knows it is messing with
GRUB. It's not keeping records of anything, and
looking at the contents of the BCD, for all the
world, the Windows OS thinks it is alone. That's why
I can only guess that somehow the NVRAM paths play
a part in this somehow.
And Boot-Repair reporter, I don't think it noticed
the Windows MBR.
So if you think Windows has "taken over", close the window,
open the window again, and see if your Manjaro menu comes back.
The state mine is in right now, doesn't seem correct
to me, but I don't know how to make install-grub
do what it is supposed to do. This assumes the MBR is still
the first stage of booting - maybe it isn't ???
There are two main ways to make grub work.
In an MBR based boot scheme, grub initial stage is written to the MBR,
and then it loads the other stages from "other" places.
OR, the MBR is a generic MBR, or the Windows MBR, which boots whatever
partition is marked bootable, and this partition has Grub in its boot
sector.
OR, its is a GPT disk with an EFI partition, and it is the EFI code
which then decides to boot whatever partition is selected to boot. There
is a little menu to decide that should show before grub menu. If not,
there are programs to change the boot order.
<https://github.com/arvidjaar/bootinfoscript/raw/master/bootinfoscript>
Download and install to /root/bin/, for example. Run and upload
resulting file on some paste site somewhere. Posting here would probably
wrap lines, but you can do that, with a client that doesn't wrap long lines.
The bootinfoscript did help. I couldn't see a way to do it from
Manjaro (a pacman search didn't list it), so I did it from Linux Mint
on the same hard drive.
My test case for today, was to do the multiboot test on a physical
disk, instead of VirtualBox, and I got slightly different results.
1) Installed Linux Mint in UEFI mode.
2) Installed Windows 10 in UEFI mode.
This was to check whether Windows would write the MBR,
and it does not. It enters stuff in the Microsoft folder
of the ESP. I fully expected Windows to take over at this point,
but I didn't care to test Linux Mint or recover grub. I don't
think Clean Installs like this, will have a happy ending in
any case.
3) Installed Manjaro.
Made /dev/sda2 (ESP) equal /boot/efi.
Manjaro adds its folder to what it thinks is /boot/efi/EFI/Manjaro,
but this is part of the Linux need to arrange /, /boot, /boot/grub
in an orderly way.
4) Let Windows 10 update itself from 17063 to 18363.
Aha! Broke the boot. Manjaro tried to boot. And the error was...
error: unknown filesystem. grub
and the temporary fix is like this.
set root=(hd0,7)
set prefix=(hd0,7)/boot/grub
insmod normal
normal
Mop up by running bootinfoscript and getting a recording
of the failed conditions.
5) To "fix it", it's the usual thing.
Enter Manjaro again using the temp fix.
set root=(hd0,7)
set prefix=(hd0,7)/boot/grub
insmod normal
normal
sudo grub-install /dev/sda
sudo update-grub
reboot
success.
Mop up by running bootinfoscript and getting a recording
of the successful conditions.
6) do a diff on the two bootinfoscript outputs.
456c456
< set root='hd0,gpt6'
---
Post by Carlos E.R.
set root='hd0,gpt7'
A partition number has changed, between the two runs.
So the grub info being used, points at the wrong partition
as some sort of hint.
Now, review the partition layout. Without going into
unnecessary detail, my install looks like this.
MBR Linux Mint Windows 10 Manjaro
The thing is, when Windows 10 does Upgrade Installs, it has
a bad habit of resizing C: about 500MB smaller, and creating
a small partition to the right of C: . This causes the
partition numbering to change. This is a disaster in the
making, for the Linux OS *to the right* of Windows 10.
So it's not actually writing /boot/efi/EFI/name_of_OS
with new EFI files.
Instead, it trashes the setup by messing around with
partitions, and the other OSes on the disk (any OSes
*to the right* of C: ) will be affected. Their partition
number changes, and something about the GRUB setup
is still using partition numbers. Even though the
FSTAB is defensively designed with UUID or BLKID or
whatever.
So how can you keep Manjaro happy on Windows 10 ?
Put it to the left of Windows 10 like this.
MBR Manjaro Windows 10
And you have to install it that way, as attempting
to push partitions around with GPARTED is bound to
end in hair loss.
Once you do that, you *should* find that it behaves
mostly without permanent damage. If it uses Fast Boot,
well, turn Fast Boot off. If it warm boots right back
into Windows 10, it's doing that because it's finishing
updates. Shutting down the VM should allow it to come
back up in Manjaro mode. On a physical disk, you should
see a similar behavior (a shutdown leads to an orderly
startup managed by GRUB again).
If Windows 10 does the 20H1 Upgrade Install next year,
as long as Windows 10 is to the right of your Linux
OSes, maybe there won't be a disaster. At least,
for the boot failure I got on my test setup.
Paul
As a continuation of this physical install test
case, the disk was working fine the last time I used it.

I pulled the disk out of the machine and put
another entirely different multiboot disk
in the computer. Later, I removed this disk and
returned to the Manjaro multiboot.

This time, the F8 Popup Boot menu on my computer listed

Ubuntu (which is actually Linux Mint)
Windows Boot Manager
<and no Manjaro...>

The Manjaro boot item is missing. Manjaro
is no longer in control (is not detected as
being in charge, if the machine starts without
any keyboard input). Whereas everything was
fine before I unplugged the drive.

Using the config above, I select the Ubuntu
entry, and jam down the Shift key immediately
after the selection. The Ubuntu GRUB text menu
comes up, and it has Manjaro and Advanced Manjaro
options. I select the Initfs fallback, and Manjaro
comes up. After a little install-grub work, away
we go.

Now, Manjaro has a boot manager entry in the F8
Popup Boot again. Maybe it wrote this entry into
the NVRAM, instead of writing anything of note on
the hard drive ? The hard drive structure does look
correct.

Manjaro
Ubuntu
Windows Boot Manager

If I start from power-off, Manjaro boots (because
it is currently first in line).

But I know if I unplug the hard drive and plug
in some other hard drive, that boot menu is going
to return to

Ubuntu (which is actually Linux Mint)
Windows Boot Manager
<and no Manjaro...>

again.

So three cheers for UEFI and flaky pastry system
boot management. Maybe Marvel Comics will have a
comic book series about this some day.

Paul
Paul
2019-12-21 16:22:37 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Paul
As a continuation of this physical install test
case, the disk was working fine the last time I used it.
I pulled the disk out of the machine and put
another entirely different multiboot disk
in the computer. Later, I removed this disk and
returned to the Manjaro multiboot.
This time, the F8 Popup Boot menu on my computer listed
Ubuntu (which is actually Linux Mint)
Windows Boot Manager
<and no Manjaro...>
The Manjaro boot item is missing. Manjaro
is no longer in control (is not detected as
being in charge, if the machine starts without
any keyboard input). Whereas everything was
fine before I unplugged the drive.
Well, no big surprise, the list is stored on flash memory controlled by
UEFI, not on disk.
There should be an option in the UEFI setup to reread and recreate the
menu. Perhaps even done automatically on disk change, so it might be a
bug or missing feature of the UEFI.
I don't see any setting like that in the BIOS.

My operative model is that the OS scans the disk
for OSes at insertion. In UEFI+CSM mode, it scans for
evidence of CSM bootability, and looks for a UEFI GPT ESP
with stuff in it.

What if you installed OSes on a separate computer
and moved it over to the UEFI machine ? It wouldn't
be acceptable for the UEFI machine to "ignore" the
disk due to a lack of automation of a recognition
process. A scanning process *has* to be there.

What little I can gather about NVRAM, is that it is
typically 4MB??? in size (like, half the BIOS flash
chip) and that it stores "paths". I've not heard
of any other kind of content stored in NVRAM, nor
have I seen a detailed enough description to have
a good idea what else it stored. If the NVRAM is
"overflowed", it can apparently prevent the
computer from working (functional brickage). And
that was a problem only with first-generation (badly
done) EFI BIOS. I no longer see reports like that
on later systems.

The legacy BIOS worked with 256 bytes of RAM storage
in the Southbridge RTC well. Of which, not all of that
was used, and the lower part of the map was a
"defacto standard". The upper 128 bytes were occasionally
used by custom hardwares, with the possibility of
usage collisions. Whereas the NVRAM concept, the Flash
memory in the BIOS chip is used to store information,
and the only information types I know of are "paths",
whatever that means.

Even the legacy BIOS used to write to its own flash
chip. There was a DMI segment it would update on
hardware changes, and an ESCD. And on Award BIOS, there
was a 2KB segment or so, used to "cache" the last-loaded
microcode segment. By manually loading that cache,
you could load microcode for processors not officially
supported in the main part of the Award BIOS. The BIOS
also contained a routine to support writing to its own
Flash. (If you wanted to write the whole chip, there's
supposed to be a "mirroring to RAM" capability before
you do it.)

Paul
Paul
2019-12-21 22:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
...
Post by Paul
As a continuation of this physical install test
case, the disk was working fine the last time I used it.
I pulled the disk out of the machine and put
another entirely different multiboot disk
in the computer. Later, I removed this disk and
returned to the Manjaro multiboot.
This time, the F8 Popup Boot menu on my computer listed
Ubuntu (which is actually Linux Mint)
Windows Boot Manager
<and no Manjaro...>
The Manjaro boot item is missing. Manjaro
is no longer in control (is not detected as
being in charge, if the machine starts without
any keyboard input). Whereas everything was
fine before I unplugged the drive.
Well, no big surprise, the list is stored on flash memory controlled by
UEFI, not on disk.
There should be an option in the UEFI setup to reread and recreate the
menu. Perhaps even done automatically on disk change, so it might be a
bug or missing feature of the UEFI.
I don't see any setting like that in the BIOS.
My operative model is that the OS scans the disk
for OSes at insertion. In UEFI+CSM mode, it scans for
evidence of CSM bootability, and looks for a UEFI GPT ESP
with stuff in it.
AFAIK, Linux does not automatically scan new disks for bootability; this
is done manually. And the OS has to be running for this, so replacing
the boot disk is not covered. There are commands to write/delete entries
in the EFI table, but you have to call them from the running system.
But if you stop the system, replace the hard disk with another, then
boot, the OS knows nothing about the change. It is the UEFI who has that
responsibility.
Post by Paul
What if you installed OSes on a separate computer
and moved it over to the UEFI machine ? It wouldn't
be acceptable for the UEFI machine to "ignore" the
disk due to a lack of automation of a recognition
process. A scanning process *has* to be there.
Yes, on the UEFI.
So there is a bug on the machine you tested this.
To date, I've never had the surprises I'm getting
with Manjaro in the mix. The LinuxMint has been
working properly, and its boot entry in my BIOS
popup boot works properly.

Manjaro is the first "failure to work properly".

The BIOS scans the ESP partition, that's what scanning
I expect to happen. And that's how a disk freshly plugged
in, should have the boot manager items prepared and put
in the BIOS popup boot menu.

ESP

EFI/Ubuntu \__ folders have same timestamp, LinuxMint installed
Boot / first for this test case
Microsoft
manjaro

The BIOS F8 Popup boot shows

Ubuntu
P2 [sata port 2] <=== An attempt at CSM boot, fails to work
Windows Boot Manager
manjaro

If I don't use the F8 key, manjaro boot manager is selected.

If I unplug the drive, use another boot hard drive, plug the
manjaro multiboot back in, manjaro effectively becomes
invisible until repaired.

This implies something that is effectively volatile
is happening. That Manjaro visibility is only there,
as long as the PC hasn't used a different disk in a boot.

Paul
Carlos E.R.
2019-12-22 13:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Paul
...
Post by Paul
As a continuation of this physical install test
case, the disk was working fine the last time I used it.
I pulled the disk out of the machine and put
another entirely different multiboot disk
in the computer. Later, I removed this disk and
returned to the Manjaro multiboot.
This time, the F8 Popup Boot menu on my computer listed
    Ubuntu (which is actually Linux Mint)
    Windows Boot Manager
    <and no Manjaro...>
The Manjaro boot item is missing. Manjaro
is no longer in control (is not detected as
being in charge, if the machine starts without
any keyboard input). Whereas everything was
fine before I unplugged the drive.
Well, no big surprise, the list is stored on flash memory controlled by
UEFI, not on disk.
There should be an option in the UEFI setup to reread and recreate the
menu. Perhaps even done automatically on disk change, so it might be a
bug or missing feature of the UEFI.
I don't see any setting like that in the BIOS.
My operative model is that the OS scans the disk
for OSes at insertion. In UEFI+CSM mode, it scans for
evidence of CSM bootability, and looks for a UEFI GPT ESP
with stuff in it.
AFAIK, Linux does not automatically scan new disks for bootability; this
is done manually. And the OS has to be running for this, so replacing
the boot disk is not covered. There are commands to write/delete entries
in the EFI table, but you have to call them from the running system.
But if you stop the system, replace the hard disk with another, then
boot, the OS knows nothing about the change. It is the UEFI who has that
responsibility.
Post by Paul
What if you installed OSes on a separate computer
and moved it over to the UEFI machine ? It wouldn't
be acceptable for the UEFI machine to "ignore" the
disk due to a lack of automation of a recognition
process. A scanning process *has* to be there.
Yes, on the UEFI.
So there is a bug on the machine you tested this.
To date, I've never had the surprises I'm getting
with Manjaro in the mix. The LinuxMint has been
working properly, and its boot entry in my BIOS
popup boot works properly.
Manjaro is the first "failure to work properly".
The BIOS scans the ESP partition, that's what scanning
I expect to happen. And that's how a disk freshly plugged
in, should have the boot manager items prepared and put
in the BIOS popup boot menu.
     ESP
     EFI/Ubuntu     \__ folders have same timestamp, LinuxMint installed
         Boot       /   first for this test case
         Microsoft
         manjaro
The BIOS F8 Popup boot shows
         Ubuntu
         P2 [sata port 2]      <=== An attempt at CSM boot, fails to work
         Windows Boot Manager
         manjaro
If I don't use the F8 key, manjaro boot manager is selected.
If I unplug the drive, use another boot hard drive, plug the
manjaro multiboot back in, manjaro effectively becomes
invisible until repaired.
This implies something that is effectively volatile
is happening. That Manjaro visibility is only there,
as long as the PC hasn't used a different disk in a boot.
Well, maybe manjaro makes something in the EFI partition that confuses
your UEFI (aka BIOS). Some missing file or with "wrong" content.

I don't have the setup for trying to replicate and try find out. Nor do
I use manjaro.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Steve Carroll
2019-12-22 13:52:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Paul
Post by Paul
...
Post by Paul
As a continuation of this physical install test
case, the disk was working fine the last time I used it.
I pulled the disk out of the machine and put
another entirely different multiboot disk
in the computer. Later, I removed this disk and
returned to the Manjaro multiboot.
This time, the F8 Popup Boot menu on my computer listed
    Ubuntu (which is actually Linux Mint)
    Windows Boot Manager
    <and no Manjaro...>
The Manjaro boot item is missing. Manjaro
is no longer in control (is not detected as
being in charge, if the machine starts without
any keyboard input). Whereas everything was
fine before I unplugged the drive.
Well, no big surprise, the list is stored on flash memory controlled by
UEFI, not on disk.
There should be an option in the UEFI setup to reread and recreate the
menu. Perhaps even done automatically on disk change, so it might be a
bug or missing feature of the UEFI.
I don't see any setting like that in the BIOS.
My operative model is that the OS scans the disk
for OSes at insertion. In UEFI+CSM mode, it scans for
evidence of CSM bootability, and looks for a UEFI GPT ESP
with stuff in it.
AFAIK, Linux does not automatically scan new disks for bootability; this
is done manually. And the OS has to be running for this, so replacing
the boot disk is not covered. There are commands to write/delete entries
in the EFI table, but you have to call them from the running system.
But if you stop the system, replace the hard disk with another, then
boot, the OS knows nothing about the change. It is the UEFI who has that
responsibility.
Post by Paul
What if you installed OSes on a separate computer
and moved it over to the UEFI machine ? It wouldn't
be acceptable for the UEFI machine to "ignore" the
disk due to a lack of automation of a recognition
process. A scanning process *has* to be there.
Yes, on the UEFI.
So there is a bug on the machine you tested this.
To date, I've never had the surprises I'm getting
with Manjaro in the mix. The LinuxMint has been
working properly, and its boot entry in my BIOS
popup boot works properly.
Manjaro is the first "failure to work properly".
The BIOS scans the ESP partition, that's what scanning
I expect to happen. And that's how a disk freshly plugged
in, should have the boot manager items prepared and put
in the BIOS popup boot menu.
     ESP
     EFI/Ubuntu     \__ folders have same timestamp, LinuxMint installed
         Boot       /   first for this test case
         Microsoft
         manjaro
The BIOS F8 Popup boot shows
         Ubuntu
         P2 [sata port 2]      <=== An attempt at CSM boot, fails to work
         Windows Boot Manager
         manjaro
If I don't use the F8 key, manjaro boot manager is selected.
If I unplug the drive, use another boot hard drive, plug the
manjaro multiboot back in, manjaro effectively becomes
invisible until repaired.
This implies something that is effectively volatile
is happening. That Manjaro visibility is only there,
as long as the PC hasn't used a different disk in a boot.
Well, maybe manjaro makes something in the EFI partition that confuses
your UEFI (aka BIOS). Some missing file or with "wrong" content.
I don't have the setup for trying to replicate and try find out. Nor do
I use manjaro.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
HA! How did Marek Novotny get _so_ egotistical he thinks everything is about himself??

Times change. Could be the idea of a chat client is getting past its prime. Marek Novotny calls it "trolling" him, even though he continues to trigger that precise standard. Not only did mGhost's question fail to refer to the "DE", it has NOTHING to do with the desktop. Marek Novotny should get back on his medicine ;) The only way that I could condone Mint's constant demand for tinkering because of programing complications or inconsistent updates is if I enjoyed the constant amount of fantasies its ads have been feeding Marek Novotny since 2019.



--
Do not click this link!
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?email2=McNuggets&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailqa_contact2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&list_id=548787&query_format=advanced&resolution=---

https://goo.gl/Fho5Nq
Jonas Eklundh Communication
Pascal Hambourg
2019-12-22 09:59:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Actually, my testing has revealed that for UEFI boot materials,
there is hardly any interest in writing the 440 byte section
of the MBR.
Of course not. This area contains BIOS boot code, useless for EFI boot.
Post by Paul
My test case for today, was to do the multiboot test on a physical
disk, instead of VirtualBox, and I got slightly different results.
1) Installed Linux Mint in UEFI mode.
2) Installed Windows 10 in UEFI mode.
3) Installed Manjaro.
4) Let Windows 10 update itself from 17063 to 18363.
   Aha! Broke the boot. Manjaro tried to boot. And the error was...
   error: unknown filesystem. grub
(...)
Post by Paul
6) do a diff on the two bootinfoscript outputs.
   456c456
   < set root='hd0,gpt6'
   ---
   > set root='hd0,gpt7'
   A partition number has changed, between the two runs.
   So the grub info being used, points at the wrong partition
   as some sort of hint.
Thanks for confirming experimentally what I replied to Melzz a week ago.
Post by Paul
Now, review the partition layout. Without going into
unnecessary detail, my install looks like this.
MBR   Linux Mint    Windows 10   Manjaro
The thing is, when Windows 10 does Upgrade Installs, it has
a bad habit of resizing C: about 500MB smaller, and creating
a small partition to the right of C: .
Isn't the MSR (Microsoft Reserved) partition supposed to be used for
this ? You have an MSR partition, don't you ?
Post by Paul
This causes the partition numbering to change.
Inserting a new partition between two existing partitions does not
renumber partitions by itself. Partition entries do not need to be in
physical order. So Windows /chooses/ to actively renumber partitions,
which IMO is just wrong and unnecessary.
Post by Paul
This is a disaster in the
making, for the Linux OS *to the right* of Windows 10.
So it's not actually writing /boot/efi/EFI/name_of_OS
with new EFI files.
As I replied to Melzz a week ago.
Post by Paul
something about the GRUB setup
is still using partition numbers.
Indeed. IME, when /boot/grub is in a plain partition on the same drive
as GRUB's core image, grub-install embeds this partition number when
building the core image. When /boot/grub is on a different drive or in
any kind of logical volume (LVM, software RAID, LUKS), grub-install
embeds an initial config file searching the UUID of this volume instead.

I wish grub-install had an option to force using an embedded config file
searching for UUID instead of the partition number.

Also, I observed that Debian's signed GRUB core image for UEFI secure
boot uses an initial config file in the EFI partition searching by UUID.
Obviously the distribution signed image cannot be modified to embed the
location of /boot/grub, so an external config file has to be used.
Post by Paul
Even though the
FSTAB is defensively designed with UUID or BLKID or
whatever.
GRUB does not care much about fstab.
Post by Paul
So how can you keep Manjaro happy on Windows 10 ?
Put it to the left of Windows 10 like this.
MBR   Manjaro    Windows 10
Note that the only part which needs to be before Windows is /boot/grub,
which can be in a very tiny partition or even in the EFI partition.
Anything else (/boot, /...) can be searched by UUID.

Or put /boot/grub on LVM or RAID, but this is a bit of overkill if you
use it only for GRUB.
Paul
2019-12-22 10:16:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Paul
Actually, my testing has revealed that for UEFI boot materials,
there is hardly any interest in writing the 440 byte section
of the MBR.
Of course not. This area contains BIOS boot code, useless for EFI boot.
Post by Paul
My test case for today, was to do the multiboot test on a physical
disk, instead of VirtualBox, and I got slightly different results.
1) Installed Linux Mint in UEFI mode.
2) Installed Windows 10 in UEFI mode.
3) Installed Manjaro.
4) Let Windows 10 update itself from 17063 to 18363.
Aha! Broke the boot. Manjaro tried to boot. And the error was...
error: unknown filesystem. grub
(...)
Post by Paul
6) do a diff on the two bootinfoscript outputs.
456c456
< set root='hd0,gpt6'
---
Post by Carlos E.R.
set root='hd0,gpt7'
A partition number has changed, between the two runs.
So the grub info being used, points at the wrong partition
as some sort of hint.
Thanks for confirming experimentally what I replied to Melzz a week ago.
Post by Paul
Now, review the partition layout. Without going into
unnecessary detail, my install looks like this.
MBR Linux Mint Windows 10 Manjaro
The thing is, when Windows 10 does Upgrade Installs, it has
a bad habit of resizing C: about 500MB smaller, and creating
a small partition to the right of C: .
Isn't the MSR (Microsoft Reserved) partition supposed to be used for
this ? You have an MSR partition, don't you ?
The MSR partition is too small for any purpose. It's 16MB or so.
No tool seems to recognize the content (it does not contain a filesystem).

The small partitions that Windows 10 insists on making, are 500MB or larger.
And it never cleans up and disposes of the smaller ones that were
"too small" for its purposes.

I have no idea what they do with partition numbers, because I don't
do a lot of UEFI installs.

And as for the topic, I'm just about losing the will to live :-/
UEFI is like a "house of cards", and falls over every 5 minutes,
and using bailing wire and binder twine, just isn't working.
It's frankly, just a load of crap.

It has no redeeming features, whatsoever.

I'd have to leave a copy of the Boot-Repair CD in
the optical drive tray, if this setup was my daily driver,
because it would be breaking so often.

I just tried to install a Debian to the test disk, and it
didn't do well at all. It looks like again, grub-install failed
to do anything, and whatever called grub-install, ignored the
error outputs it provided. Now it's telling me there is no BIOS
partition or something, when /dev/sda1 FAT is present, the top
level EFI is present, and the other OS boot materials are
still in there. And even if I mount that partition, then
run grub-install, it insists on printing out the same
error message. Even though there is a /boot/efi/EFI
staring it in the face.

Whoever thought a house of cards was a good idea, what
were they thinking ??? That only the regulars on reboot.pro
would have working computers ?

One of the reasons I'm studying this stuff, is Intel has
announced that soon (like maybe next year), motherboards
will ship with UEFI-only setups and CSM will no longer
be provided. And what these experiences are telling me,
is this stuff isn't ready to be cut over like that.
It's too fragile.

Paul
Steve Carroll
2019-12-22 10:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Paul
Actually, my testing has revealed that for UEFI boot materials,
there is hardly any interest in writing the 440 byte section
of the MBR.
Of course not. This area contains BIOS boot code, useless for EFI boot.
Post by Paul
My test case for today, was to do the multiboot test on a physical
disk, instead of VirtualBox, and I got slightly different results.
1) Installed Linux Mint in UEFI mode.
2) Installed Windows 10 in UEFI mode.
3) Installed Manjaro.
4) Let Windows 10 update itself from 17063 to 18363.
Aha! Broke the boot. Manjaro tried to boot. And the error was...
error: unknown filesystem. grub
(...)
Post by Paul
6) do a diff on the two bootinfoscript outputs.
456c456
< set root='hd0,gpt6'
---
Post by Carlos E.R.
set root='hd0,gpt7'
A partition number has changed, between the two runs.
So the grub info being used, points at the wrong partition
as some sort of hint.
Thanks for confirming experimentally what I replied to Melzz a week ago.
Post by Paul
Now, review the partition layout. Without going into
unnecessary detail, my install looks like this.
MBR Linux Mint Windows 10 Manjaro
The thing is, when Windows 10 does Upgrade Installs, it has
a bad habit of resizing C: about 500MB smaller, and creating
a small partition to the right of C: .
Isn't the MSR (Microsoft Reserved) partition supposed to be used for
this ? You have an MSR partition, don't you ?
The MSR partition is too small for any purpose. It's 16MB or so.
No tool seems to recognize the content (it does not contain a filesystem).
The small partitions that Windows 10 insists on making, are 500MB or larger.
And it never cleans up and disposes of the smaller ones that were
"too small" for its purposes.
I have no idea what they do with partition numbers, because I don't
do a lot of UEFI installs.
And as for the topic, I'm just about losing the will to live :-/
UEFI is like a "house of cards", and falls over every 5 minutes,
and using bailing wire and binder twine, just isn't working.
It's frankly, just a load of crap.
It has no redeeming features, whatsoever.
I'd have to leave a copy of the Boot-Repair CD in
the optical drive tray, if this setup was my daily driver,
because it would be breaking so often.
I just tried to install a Debian to the test disk, and it
didn't do well at all. It looks like again, grub-install failed
to do anything, and whatever called grub-install, ignored the
error outputs it provided. Now it's telling me there is no BIOS
partition or something, when /dev/sda1 FAT is present, the top
level EFI is present, and the other OS boot materials are
still in there. And even if I mount that partition, then
run grub-install, it insists on printing out the same
error message. Even though there is a /boot/efi/EFI
staring it in the face.
Whoever thought a house of cards was a good idea, what
were they thinking ??? That only the regulars on reboot.pro
would have working computers ?
One of the reasons I'm studying this stuff, is Intel has
announced that soon (like maybe next year), motherboards
will ship with UEFI-only setups and CSM will no longer
be provided. And what these experiences are telling me,
is this stuff isn't ready to be cut over like that.
It's too fragile.
Paul
Thanks to vallor and his 'convenient friends' you now need a go / no-go list (which I configured for slrn and Unison). Trust me, publicly (at least) I cold turkey stopped giving him what he's asked for. If Snit and others start attacking him again I will feel compelled to... as I promised. I am referring to our clan here, not trolls, who talk to him no matter what. Marketing is a wonderful thing and consumer cluelessness is even better. You're like the amateur Arch Linux icon on a professionally designed desktop. We all see you there and let you know. And you're so dumb you keep denying it. Demanding vallor to apologize, which we should all do, is distinct from denoting his double-dealing. My meaning was that people arrive here to shoot down kookery. It's not as if honest people do not quickly figure out what this forum is, Snit especially.

-
This broke the Internet



Jonas Eklundh
Pascal Hambourg
2019-12-22 12:53:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Paul
The thing is, when Windows 10 does Upgrade Installs, it has
a bad habit of resizing C: about 500MB smaller, and creating
a small partition to the right of C: .
Isn't the MSR (Microsoft Reserved) partition supposed to be used for
this ? You have an MSR partition, don't you ?
The MSR partition is too small for any purpose. It's 16MB or so.
16 MiB is the minimum size. It was rather 128 MiB on the installations I
have seen.
Post by Paul
No tool seems to recognize the content (it does not contain a filesystem).
Indeed, it is used only for temporary operation and has no defined
structure.
Post by Paul
UEFI is like a "house of cards", and falls over every 5 minutes,
and using bailing wire and binder twine, just isn't working.
It's frankly, just a load of crap.
I regretfully have to agree. At first glance UEFI looked promising for
multiboot, but most implementations I have seen are just catastrophic.
It looks like the only compliance test the motherboard manufacturers or
firmware developpers have done is "does it work with Windows ?" and they
did not care for anything else.
Post by Paul
I just tried to install a Debian to the test disk, and it
didn't do well at all. It looks like again, grub-install failed
to do anything, and whatever called grub-install, ignored the
error outputs it provided. Now it's telling me there is no BIOS
partition or something,
"BIOS boot" partition ? It means the Debian installer was booted in
BIOS/legacy mode, not in EFI mode, and is trying to install GRUB for
BIOS. On a GPT disk, GRUB requires a BIOS boot partition. In
parted/gparted, it is identified with the "bios_grub" flag. This
partition needs to be only 100 kB (yes, kilobytes) or so, so you can
create it in any tiny free space such as the ~1 MB space between the
primary partition table and the first partition.
Post by Paul
when /dev/sda1 FAT is present, the top
level EFI is present, and the other OS boot materials are
still in there. And even if I mount that partition, then > run grub-install, it insists on printing out the same
error message. Even though there is a /boot/efi/EFI
staring it in the face.
As expected. The EFI partition is useless for BIOS boot.
Post by Paul
One of the reasons I'm studying this stuff, is Intel has
announced that soon (like maybe next year), motherboards
will ship with UEFI-only setups and CSM will no longer
be provided. And what these experiences are telling me,
is this stuff isn't ready to be cut over like that.
Agreed.
Ever tried to setup redundant EFI boot with software RAID ?
Carlos E.R.
2019-12-22 13:59:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
And as for the topic, I'm just about losing the will to live :-/
UEFI is like a "house of cards", and falls over every 5 minutes,
and using bailing wire and binder twine, just isn't working.
It's frankly, just a load of crap.
It has no redeeming features, whatsoever.
They only test it with Windows :-/
Post by Paul
I'd have to leave a copy of the Boot-Repair CD in
the optical drive tray, if this setup was my daily driver,
because it would be breaking so often.
I just tried to install a Debian to the test disk, and it
didn't do well at all. It looks like again, grub-install failed
to do anything, and whatever called grub-install, ignored the
error outputs it provided. Now it's telling me there is no BIOS
partition or something, when /dev/sda1 FAT is present,
That happens if the installation disk was booted in "legacy" or "bios"
mode. I recognize the error from openSUSE.
Post by Paul
the top
level EFI is present, and the other OS boot materials are
still in there. And even if I mount that partition, then
run grub-install, it insists on printing out the same
error message. Even though there is a /boot/efi/EFI
staring it in the face.
It is a space to store the second stage of GRUB. The first goes into the
MBR, the second into that partition. When MBR is used, ie, BIOS or
Legacy mode.
Post by Paul
Whoever thought a house of cards was a good idea, what
were they thinking ??? That only the regulars on reboot.pro
would have working computers ?
One of the reasons I'm studying this stuff, is Intel has
announced that soon (like maybe next year), motherboards
will ship with UEFI-only setups and CSM will no longer
be provided. And what these experiences are telling me,
is this stuff isn't ready to be cut over like that.
It's too fragile.
It works well if manufacturers really test things.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Carlos E.R.
2019-12-22 13:48:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Paul
Actually, my testing has revealed that for UEFI boot materials,
there is hardly any interest in writing the 440 byte section
of the MBR.
Of course not. This area contains BIOS boot code, useless for EFI boot.
Post by Paul
My test case for today, was to do the multiboot test on a physical
disk, instead of VirtualBox, and I got slightly different results.
1) Installed Linux Mint in UEFI mode.
2) Installed Windows 10 in UEFI mode.
3) Installed Manjaro.
4) Let Windows 10 update itself from 17063 to 18363.
    Aha! Broke the boot. Manjaro tried to boot. And the error was...
    error: unknown filesystem. grub
(...)
Post by Paul
6) do a diff on the two bootinfoscript outputs.
    456c456
    < set root='hd0,gpt6'
    ---
    > set root='hd0,gpt7'
    A partition number has changed, between the two runs.
    So the grub info being used, points at the wrong partition
    as some sort of hint.
Thanks for confirming experimentally what I replied to Melzz a week ago.
Post by Paul
Now, review the partition layout. Without going into
unnecessary detail, my install looks like this.
MBR   Linux Mint    Windows 10   Manjaro
The thing is, when Windows 10 does Upgrade Installs, it has
a bad habit of resizing C: about 500MB smaller, and creating
a small partition to the right of C: .
Isn't the MSR (Microsoft Reserved) partition supposed to be used for
this ? You have an MSR partition, don't you ?
Post by Paul
This causes the partition numbering to change.
Inserting a new partition between two existing partitions does not
renumber partitions by itself. Partition entries do not need to be in
physical order. So Windows /chooses/ to actively renumber partitions,
which IMO is just wrong and unnecessary.
No nono.

Assuming GPT partitions. It is a table:

···············
EFI first entry
···············
windows second entry
···············
linux third entry
··············

Corresponding to this spacing in the disk

--------------

efi

---------------


windows










---------------



linux













---------------
...



Then a new partition is inserted:


--------------

efi

---------------


windows








---------------
new
---------------



linux













---------------
...



The table has to be changed. There are two methods:


···············
EFI first entry
···············
windows second entry
···············
linux third entry
··············
new fourth entry
··············

Notice that partition tools may say that the order of partitions is not
consecutive. True (and stupid operating system may break). Thus this may
be done instead:

···············
EFI first entry
···············
windows second entry
···············
new third entry
··············
linux fourth entry
··············

Which is more risky, the partitioner tool has to change several entries.
If it crashes at the wrong moment, the entire disk may be lost.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Paul
This is a disaster in the
making, for the Linux OS *to the right* of Windows 10.
So it's not actually writing /boot/efi/EFI/name_of_OS
with new EFI files.
As I replied to Melzz a week ago.
Post by Paul
something about the GRUB setup
is still using partition numbers.
Indeed. IME, when /boot/grub is in a plain partition on the same drive
as GRUB's core image, grub-install embeds this partition number when
building the core image. When /boot/grub is on a different drive or in
any kind of logical volume (LVM, software RAID, LUKS), grub-install
embeds an initial config file searching the UUID of this volume instead.
I wish grub-install had an option to force using an embedded config file
searching for UUID instead of the partition number.
openSUSE always seeks for the UUID, as far as I understand.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Also, I observed that Debian's signed GRUB core image for UEFI secure
boot uses an initial config file in the EFI partition searching by UUID.
Obviously the distribution signed image cannot be modified to embed the
location of /boot/grub, so an external config file has to be used.
I can see the same file in openSUSE.
/boot/efi/EFI/boot/grub.cfg:

set btrfs_relative_path="yes"
search --fs-uuid --set=root 0d457df1-...
set prefix=(${root})/boot/grub2
source "${prefix}/grub.cfg"
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Paul
Even though the
FSTAB is defensively designed with UUID or BLKID or
whatever.
GRUB does not care much about fstab.
Post by Paul
So how can you keep Manjaro happy on Windows 10 ?
Put it to the left of Windows 10 like this.
MBR   Manjaro    Windows 10
Note that the only part which needs to be before Windows is /boot/grub,
which can be in a very tiny partition or even in the EFI partition.
Anything else (/boot, /...) can be searched by UUID.
But apparently manjaro doesn't.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Or put /boot/grub on LVM or RAID, but this is a bit of overkill if you
use it only for GRUB.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Pascal Hambourg
2019-12-22 14:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Inserting a new partition between two existing partitions does not
renumber partitions by itself. Partition entries do not need to be in
physical order. So Windows /chooses/ to actively renumber partitions,
which IMO is just wrong and unnecessary.
No nono.
No what ? What do you disagree with in what I wrote ?
Post by Carlos E.R.
EFI first entry
windows second entry
linux third entry
Corresponding to this spacing in the disk
(snip same physical order)
(snip new partition physically between windows and linux)
(snip use first available entry in the table for new partition)
Post by Carlos E.R.
Notice that partition tools may say that the order of partitions is not
consecutive.
So what ? Is there any requirement in the GPT specification that
partition entries must be used in physical order ?
Post by Carlos E.R.
True (and stupid operating system may break).
Any example of stupdi operating system which breaks because of this ?
(shift linux partition entry and use its old entry for new partition)
Post by Carlos E.R.
Which is more risky, the partitioner tool has to change several entries.
And which is known to break some operating systems. Example in this thread.
Post by Carlos E.R.
If it crashes at the wrong moment, the entire disk may be lost.
No, GPT keeps a backup partition table at the end of the drive.
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
I wish grub-install had an option to force using an embedded config file
searching for UUID instead of the partition number.
openSUSE always seeks for the UUID, as far as I understand.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Also, I observed that Debian's signed GRUB core image for UEFI secure
boot uses an initial config file in the EFI partition searching by UUID.
Obviously the distribution signed image cannot be modified to embed the
location of /boot/grub, so an external config file has to be used.
I can see the same file in openSUSE.
Is this a signed GRUB for secure boot (with shimx64.efi) ?
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Note that the only part which needs to be before Windows is /boot/grub,
which can be in a very tiny partition or even in the EFI partition.
Anything else (/boot, /...) can be searched by UUID.
But apparently manjaro doesn't.
Doesn't what ? Store /boot/grub before Windows ? I doubt any
distribution does this automatically, except those which put the whole
/boot in the EFI partition (Fedora ?). You have to instruct it to do so
when partitioning.
Carlos E.R.
2019-12-22 17:50:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Inserting a new partition between two existing partitions does not
renumber partitions by itself. Partition entries do not need to be in
physical order. So Windows /chooses/ to actively renumber partitions,
which IMO is just wrong and unnecessary.
No nono.
No what ? What do you disagree with in what I wrote ?
That is not about writing numbers on the partitions, they are not
"numbered".
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
  EFI            first entry
  windows        second entry
linux           third entry
Corresponding to this spacing in the disk
(snip same physical order)
(snip new partition physically between windows and linux)
(snip use first available entry in the table for new partition)
Post by Carlos E.R.
Notice that partition tools may say that the order of partitions is not
consecutive.
So what ? Is there any requirement in the GPT specification that
partition entries must be used in physical order ?
No, not in GPT, not in MBR. Yet, some designs did not consider that case.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
True (and stupid operating system may break).
Any example of stupdi operating system which breaks because of this ?
It happened long ago to me, with Windows 98 perhaps. There were tools to
correct the order. On checking the system they would offer to do it
automatically.

See how Windows 10 avoids this situation, which prompted this thread...
Post by Pascal Hambourg
(shift linux partition entry and use its old entry for new partition)
Post by Carlos E.R.
Which is more risky, the partitioner tool has to change several entries.
And which is known to break some operating systems. Example in this thread.
Post by Carlos E.R.
If it crashes at the wrong moment, the entire disk may be lost.
No, GPT keeps a backup partition table at the end of the drive.
Yes, but the operator needs to command the repair and not make a
mistake, with repair tools, becayse the disk may not boot.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
I wish grub-install had an option to force using an embedded config file
searching for UUID instead of the partition number.
openSUSE always seeks for the UUID, as far as I understand.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Also, I observed that Debian's signed GRUB core image for UEFI secure
boot uses an initial config file in the EFI partition searching by UUID.
Obviously the distribution signed image cannot be modified to embed the
location of /boot/grub, so an external config file has to be used.
I can see the same file in openSUSE.
Is this a signed GRUB for secure boot (with shimx64.efi) ?
Yes. But with shim.efi.

/boot/efi/EFI/opensuse/shim.efi:

search --fs-uuid --set=root 0d457df1-...
set prefix=(${root})/boot/grub2
source "${prefix}/grub.cfg"


But I think I disabled secure boot on that machine.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Note that the only part which needs to be before Windows is /boot/grub,
which can be in a very tiny partition or even in the EFI partition.
Anything else (/boot, /...) can be searched by UUID.
But apparently manjaro doesn't.
Doesn't what ?
Search by UUID.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Store /boot/grub before Windows ? I doubt any
distribution does this automatically, except those which put the whole
/boot in the EFI partition (Fedora ?). You have to instruct it to do so
when partitioning.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Steve Carroll
2019-12-22 17:59:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Inserting a new partition between two existing partitions does not
renumber partitions by itself. Partition entries do not need to be in
physical order. So Windows /chooses/ to actively renumber partitions,
which IMO is just wrong and unnecessary.
No nono.
No what ? What do you disagree with in what I wrote ?
That is not about writing numbers on the partitions, they are not
"numbered".
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
  EFI            first entry
  windows        second entry
linux           third entry
Corresponding to this spacing in the disk
(snip same physical order)
(snip new partition physically between windows and linux)
(snip use first available entry in the table for new partition)
Post by Carlos E.R.
Notice that partition tools may say that the order of partitions is not
consecutive.
So what ? Is there any requirement in the GPT specification that
partition entries must be used in physical order ?
No, not in GPT, not in MBR. Yet, some designs did not consider that case.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
True (and stupid operating system may break).
Any example of stupdi operating system which breaks because of this ?
It happened long ago to me, with Windows 98 perhaps. There were tools to
correct the order. On checking the system they would offer to do it
automatically.
See how Windows 10 avoids this situation, which prompted this thread...
Post by Pascal Hambourg
(shift linux partition entry and use its old entry for new partition)
Post by Carlos E.R.
Which is more risky, the partitioner tool has to change several entries.
And which is known to break some operating systems. Example in this thread.
Post by Carlos E.R.
If it crashes at the wrong moment, the entire disk may be lost.
No, GPT keeps a backup partition table at the end of the drive.
Yes, but the operator needs to command the repair and not make a
mistake, with repair tools, becayse the disk may not boot.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
I wish grub-install had an option to force using an embedded config file
searching for UUID instead of the partition number.
openSUSE always seeks for the UUID, as far as I understand.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Also, I observed that Debian's signed GRUB core image for UEFI secure
boot uses an initial config file in the EFI partition searching by UUID.
Obviously the distribution signed image cannot be modified to embed the
location of /boot/grub, so an external config file has to be used.
I can see the same file in openSUSE.
Is this a signed GRUB for secure boot (with shimx64.efi) ?
Yes. But with shim.efi.
search --fs-uuid --set=root 0d457df1-...
set prefix=(${root})/boot/grub2
source "${prefix}/grub.cfg"
But I think I disabled secure boot on that machine.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Note that the only part which needs to be before Windows is /boot/grub,
which can be in a very tiny partition or even in the EFI partition.
Anything else (/boot, /...) can be searched by UUID.
But apparently manjaro doesn't.
Doesn't what ?
Search by UUID.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Store /boot/grub before Windows ? I doubt any
distribution does this automatically, except those which put the whole
/boot in the EFI partition (Fedora ?). You have to instruct it to do so
when partitioning.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Do you have a high school diploma? Don't look now, but I think William 'Super Troll' Poaster has a serious mancrush on Snit (a real advocate).

Effectively everything William 'Super Troll' Poaster says about Snit (a real advocate) is false as everyone knows. Many individuals keep talking to William 'Super Troll' Poaster. In truth I can not blame Snit (a real advocate) for his animosity but, truly, I can not conceive why he writes here now that he gets what this place is. Snit (a real advocate) is focused on dialog as is common in a serious group and support groups just will never work for him. But when the stats were run, it turns out beyond any doubt, William 'Super Troll' Poaster was far more "neurotic" than even I imagined.



--
Get Rich Slow
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/RSikBcWxBLo
Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
Pascal Hambourg
2019-12-22 21:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Inserting a new partition between two existing partitions does not
renumber partitions by itself. Partition entries do not need to be in
physical order. So Windows /chooses/ to actively renumber partitions,
which IMO is just wrong and unnecessary.
No nono.
No what ? What do you disagree with in what I wrote ?
That is not about writing numbers on the partitions, they are not
"numbered".
Come on, you know what I mean. Partition entries have implicit numbers
from their position in the table.
Maybe you prefer "partition (re)ordering" ?
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
So what ? Is there any requirement in the GPT specification that
partition entries must be used in physical order ?
(...)
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Any example of stupdi operating system which breaks because of this ?
It happened long ago to me, with Windows 98 perhaps. There were tools to
correct the order. On checking the system they would offer to do it
automatically.
See how Windows 10 avoids this situation, which prompted this thread...
I wonder how it reacts when partitions are not in physical order.
But I have no Windows 10 installation to test.
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Also, I observed that Debian's signed GRUB core image for UEFI secure
boot uses an initial config file in the EFI partition searching by UUID.
Obviously the distribution signed image cannot be modified to embed the
location of /boot/grub, so an external config file has to be used.
I can see the same file in openSUSE.
Is this a signed GRUB for secure boot (with shimx64.efi) ?
Yes.
(...)
Post by Carlos E.R.
But I think I disabled secure boot on that machine.
In Debian, it does not matter, it installs the signed flavour by default
regardless of whether secure boot is enabled or not. I guess openSUSE
does the same.
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Note that the only part which needs to be before Windows is /boot/grub,
which can be in a very tiny partition or even in the EFI partition.
Anything else (/boot, /...) can be searched by UUID.
But apparently manjaro doesn't.
Doesn't what ?
Search by UUID.
It is only the unsigned GRUB core image which doesn't search by UUID.
Debian's unsigned GRUB core image doesn't either. I bet that Manjaro
uses UUIDs for anything else, as any modern distribution does.
Steve Carroll
2019-12-22 22:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Inserting a new partition between two existing partitions does not
renumber partitions by itself. Partition entries do not need to be in
physical order. So Windows /chooses/ to actively renumber partitions,
which IMO is just wrong and unnecessary.
No nono.
No what ? What do you disagree with in what I wrote ?
That is not about writing numbers on the partitions, they are not
"numbered".
Come on, you know what I mean. Partition entries have implicit numbers
from their position in the table.
Maybe you prefer "partition (re)ordering" ?
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
So what ? Is there any requirement in the GPT specification that
partition entries must be used in physical order ?
(...)
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Any example of stupdi operating system which breaks because of this ?
It happened long ago to me, with Windows 98 perhaps. There were tools to
correct the order. On checking the system they would offer to do it
automatically.
See how Windows 10 avoids this situation, which prompted this thread...
I wonder how it reacts when partitions are not in physical order.
But I have no Windows 10 installation to test.
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Also, I observed that Debian's signed GRUB core image for UEFI secure
boot uses an initial config file in the EFI partition searching by UUID.
Obviously the distribution signed image cannot be modified to embed the
location of /boot/grub, so an external config file has to be used.
I can see the same file in openSUSE.
Is this a signed GRUB for secure boot (with shimx64.efi) ?
Yes.
(...)
Post by Carlos E.R.
But I think I disabled secure boot on that machine.
In Debian, it does not matter, it installs the signed flavour by default
regardless of whether secure boot is enabled or not. I guess openSUSE
does the same.
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Note that the only part which needs to be before Windows is /boot/grub,
which can be in a very tiny partition or even in the EFI partition.
Anything else (/boot, /...) can be searched by UUID.
But apparently manjaro doesn't.
Doesn't what ?
Search by UUID.
It is only the unsigned GRUB core image which doesn't search by UUID.
Debian's unsigned GRUB core image doesn't either. I bet that Manjaro
uses UUIDs for anything else, as any modern distribution does.
And in retaliation you have nothing but an attempt to start a troll-fest.

Protected code is being built into GIMP.

If Marek Novotny has 'b.txt' open in a word processor such as Atom and you want to change its name to 'linux.txt' via a proxy icon while selecting a VPN from a list, Marek Novotny's method might be handy, if only to ensure a proper gaslighting of the LCD. Are you being stupid on purpose?

--
Best CMS Solution of 2017
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100012978552519
http://alt.conspiracy.narkive.com/QcWYJ4Px/the-mentally-ill-mark-s-bilk
http://prescottcomputerguy.com
Jonas Eklundh
Steve Carroll
2019-12-23 00:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Inserting a new partition between two existing partitions does not
renumber partitions by itself. Partition entries do not need to be in
physical order. So Windows /chooses/ to actively renumber partitions,
which IMO is just wrong and unnecessary.
No nono.
No what ? What do you disagree with in what I wrote ?
That is not about writing numbers on the partitions, they are not
"numbered".
Come on, you know what I mean. Partition entries have implicit numbers
from their position in the table.
Maybe you prefer "partition (re)ordering" ?
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
So what ? Is there any requirement in the GPT specification that
partition entries must be used in physical order ?
(...)
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Any example of stupdi operating system which breaks because of this ?
It happened long ago to me, with Windows 98 perhaps. There were tools to
correct the order. On checking the system they would offer to do it
automatically.
See how Windows 10 avoids this situation, which prompted this thread...
I wonder how it reacts when partitions are not in physical order.
But I have no Windows 10 installation to test.
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Also, I observed that Debian's signed GRUB core image for UEFI secure
boot uses an initial config file in the EFI partition searching by UUID.
Obviously the distribution signed image cannot be modified to embed the
location of /boot/grub, so an external config file has to be used.
I can see the same file in openSUSE.
Is this a signed GRUB for secure boot (with shimx64.efi) ?
Yes.
(...)
Post by Carlos E.R.
But I think I disabled secure boot on that machine.
In Debian, it does not matter, it installs the signed flavour by default
regardless of whether secure boot is enabled or not. I guess openSUSE
does the same.
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Note that the only part which needs to be before Windows is /boot/grub,
which can be in a very tiny partition or even in the EFI partition.
Anything else (/boot, /...) can be searched by UUID.
But apparently manjaro doesn't.
Doesn't what ?
Search by UUID.
It is only the unsigned GRUB core image which doesn't search by UUID.
Debian's unsigned GRUB core image doesn't either. I bet that Manjaro
uses UUIDs for anything else, as any modern distribution does.
And in retaliation you have nothing but an attempt to start a troll-fest.
Protected code is being built into GIMP.
If Marek Novotny has 'b.txt' open in a word processor such as Atom and you want to change its name to 'linux.txt' via a proxy icon while selecting a VPN from a list, Marek Novotny's method might be handy, if only to ensure a proper gaslighting of the LCD. Are you being stupid on purpose?
--
Best CMS Solution of 2017
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100012978552519
http://alt.conspiracy.narkive.com/QcWYJ4Px/the-mentally-ill-mark-s-bilk
http://prescottcomputerguy.com
Jonas Eklundh
I guess this is what comes about when dangerously inferior pride takes over Onion Knight's psyche. Yup. It seems this is what we have to put up with. Psychopaths who have no reason for being here other than to antagonize others. I just set score: -9999 and won't see the posts. Onion Knight's crap has made a ruin of COLA via Google Groups, so I don't even try browsing the group with my usenet reader anymore. Only thing he has achieved with this behavior though is that the Onion Knight filter has been shown to clearly be the right thing. Onion Knight's posts are nothing but an inconsequential babble.

Onion Knight failed to show an example of a large business that has gained its wealth by not caring about its customers or products.

It's as predicted that Onion Knight faked ennui at the appearance of being assumed credible... knowing that it's inconceivable to ever materialize. Why would you want to cap all scripts on Mint to what can be done on commercial OSs?
--
This broke the Internet!!


Jonas Eklundh Communication
Steve Carroll
2019-12-23 14:12:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Inserting a new partition between two existing partitions does not
renumber partitions by itself. Partition entries do not need to be in
physical order. So Windows /chooses/ to actively renumber partitions,
which IMO is just wrong and unnecessary.
No nono.
No what ? What do you disagree with in what I wrote ?
That is not about writing numbers on the partitions, they are not
"numbered".
Come on, you know what I mean. Partition entries have implicit numbers
from their position in the table.
Maybe you prefer "partition (re)ordering" ?
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
So what ? Is there any requirement in the GPT specification that
partition entries must be used in physical order ?
(...)
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Any example of stupdi operating system which breaks because of this ?
It happened long ago to me, with Windows 98 perhaps. There were tools to
correct the order. On checking the system they would offer to do it
automatically.
See how Windows 10 avoids this situation, which prompted this thread...
I wonder how it reacts when partitions are not in physical order.
But I have no Windows 10 installation to test.
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Also, I observed that Debian's signed GRUB core image for UEFI secure
boot uses an initial config file in the EFI partition searching by UUID.
Obviously the distribution signed image cannot be modified to embed the
location of /boot/grub, so an external config file has to be used.
I can see the same file in openSUSE.
Is this a signed GRUB for secure boot (with shimx64.efi) ?
Yes.
(...)
Post by Carlos E.R.
But I think I disabled secure boot on that machine.
In Debian, it does not matter, it installs the signed flavour by default
regardless of whether secure boot is enabled or not. I guess openSUSE
does the same.
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Note that the only part which needs to be before Windows is /boot/grub,
which can be in a very tiny partition or even in the EFI partition.
Anything else (/boot, /...) can be searched by UUID.
But apparently manjaro doesn't.
Doesn't what ?
Search by UUID.
It is only the unsigned GRUB core image which doesn't search by UUID.
Debian's unsigned GRUB core image doesn't either. I bet that Manjaro
uses UUIDs for anything else, as any modern distribution does.
And in retaliation you have nothing but an attempt to start a troll-fest.
Protected code is being built into GIMP.
If Marek Novotny has 'b.txt' open in a word processor such as Atom and you want to change its name to 'linux.txt' via a proxy icon while selecting a VPN from a list, Marek Novotny's method might be handy, if only to ensure a proper gaslighting of the LCD. Are you being stupid on purpose?
--
Best CMS Solution of 2017
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100012978552519
http://alt.conspiracy.narkive.com/QcWYJ4Px/the-mentally-ill-mark-s-bilk
http://prescottcomputerguy.com
Jonas Eklundh
I guess this is what comes about when dangerously inferior pride takes over Onion Knight's psyche. Yup. It seems this is what we have to put up with. Psychopaths who have no reason for being here other than to antagonize others. I just set score: -9999 and won't see the posts. Onion Knight's crap has made a ruin of COLA via Google Groups, so I don't even try browsing the group with my usenet reader anymore. Only thing he has achieved with this behavior though is that the Onion Knight filter has been shown to clearly be the right thing. Onion Knight's posts are nothing but an inconsequential babble.
Onion Knight failed to show an example of a large business that has gained its wealth by not caring about its customers or products.
It's as predicted that Onion Knight faked ennui at the appearance of being assumed credible... knowing that it's inconceivable to ever materialize. Why would you want to cap all scripts on Mint to what can be done on commercial OSs?
--
This broke the Internet!!
http://youtu.be/lF8yk7ul4Mw
http://youtu.be/dNhvVfD4zu4
Jonas Eklundh Communication
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512


- --
sex n
1. either of the two reproductive categories, male or female, of animals and plants
2. sexual intercourse
3. sexual activity or behavior leading to it
4. the genitals (literary)
5. the set of characteristics that determine whether the reproductive role of an animal or plant is male or female
- --

And, notably, Snit wrote:
"Sex is a subset of sexual activities" - Snit - (I guess he didn't comprehend point 3 very well)

Of course, he also wrote:
"Sexual activities are sex by definition, you moron" - Snit

And this:
"A passionate kiss could be called a "sexual activity" but it is not sex"

In Snit's world, a passionate kiss is not sex... but it is sex. LOL!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=4yFU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-
Get Rich Slow

https://www.facebook.com/jenny.eklund
Jonas Eklundh Communication
Pascal Hambourg
2019-12-22 09:36:12 UTC
Permalink
[Please could you trim the quotes in your replies ?]
Post by Carlos E.R.
There are two main ways to make grub work.
In an MBR based boot scheme, grub initial stage is written to the MBR,
and then it loads the other stages from "other" places.
OR, the MBR is a generic MBR, or the Windows MBR, which boots whatever
partition is marked bootable, and this partition has Grub in its boot
sector.
OR, its is a GPT disk with an EFI partition, and it is the EFI code
which then decides to boot whatever partition is selected to boot. There
is a little menu to decide that should show before grub menu. If not,
there are programs to change the boot order.
You seem to be confusing boot scheme and partition scheme, as many.
Boot scheme is either BIOS (using MBR boot code) or EFI (using an EFI
executable file on an EFI partition).
Partition scheme is either DOS/MBR or GPT.

Either boot scheme may be used with either partition scheme. BIOS boot
is not restricted to DOS/MBR, and EFI boot is not restricted to GPT. GPT
partition scheme also has a (protective) MBR, and DOS/MBR partition
scheme has an EFI partition type.
Carlos E.R.
2019-12-22 14:03:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pascal Hambourg
[Please could you trim the quotes in your replies ?]
Post by Carlos E.R.
There are two main ways to make grub work.
In an MBR based boot scheme, grub initial stage is written to the MBR,
and then it loads the other stages from "other" places.
OR, the MBR is a generic MBR, or the Windows MBR, which boots whatever
partition is marked bootable, and this partition has Grub in its boot
sector.
OR, its is a GPT disk with an EFI partition, and it is the EFI code
which then decides to boot whatever partition is selected to boot. There
is a little menu to decide that should show before grub menu. If not,
there are programs to change the boot order.
You seem to be confusing boot scheme and partition scheme, as many.
No, I don't
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Boot scheme is either BIOS (using MBR boot code) or EFI (using an EFI
executable file on an EFI partition).
Partition scheme is either DOS/MBR or GPT.
I know.

Wait, error:

Boot scheme is either BIOS (using MBR boot code) or UEFI (using an ?EFI
executable file on an EFI partition).
Partition scheme is either DOS/MBR or GPT.

if we are going to be punctilious ;-)
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Either boot scheme may be used with either partition scheme. BIOS boot
is not restricted to DOS/MBR, and EFI boot is not restricted to GPT. GPT
partition scheme also has a (protective) MBR, and DOS/MBR partition
scheme has an EFI partition type.
I know. I'm booting this BIOS only machine with GPT disks.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Steve Carroll
2019-12-22 14:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
[Please could you trim the quotes in your replies ?]
Post by Carlos E.R.
There are two main ways to make grub work.
In an MBR based boot scheme, grub initial stage is written to the MBR,
and then it loads the other stages from "other" places.
OR, the MBR is a generic MBR, or the Windows MBR, which boots whatever
partition is marked bootable, and this partition has Grub in its boot
sector.
OR, its is a GPT disk with an EFI partition, and it is the EFI code
which then decides to boot whatever partition is selected to boot. There
is a little menu to decide that should show before grub menu. If not,
there are programs to change the boot order.
You seem to be confusing boot scheme and partition scheme, as many.
No, I don't
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Boot scheme is either BIOS (using MBR boot code) or EFI (using an EFI
executable file on an EFI partition).
Partition scheme is either DOS/MBR or GPT.
I know.
Boot scheme is either BIOS (using MBR boot code) or UEFI (using an ?EFI
executable file on an EFI partition).
Partition scheme is either DOS/MBR or GPT.
if we are going to be punctilious ;-)
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Either boot scheme may be used with either partition scheme. BIOS boot
is not restricted to DOS/MBR, and EFI boot is not restricted to GPT. GPT
partition scheme also has a (protective) MBR, and DOS/MBR partition
scheme has an EFI partition type.
I know. I'm booting this BIOS only machine with GPT disks.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
I'm getting more posts hidden then show. I'm guessing the Mac cultist is proving the advocates right again. It is utter bliss to not read that crap. Why would Just Wondering need shills? He is the one who quotes facts for his side of the "arguments".

Just Wondering reported flatfish+++ years ago. As expected, it did nothing to derail the bozo.

--
Live on Kickstarter!
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.advocacy/smzXrBhsWf4
http://tinyurl.com/proof-about-ebot
Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
Steve Carroll
2019-12-22 15:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
[Please could you trim the quotes in your replies ?]
Post by Carlos E.R.
There are two main ways to make grub work.
In an MBR based boot scheme, grub initial stage is written to the MBR,
and then it loads the other stages from "other" places.
OR, the MBR is a generic MBR, or the Windows MBR, which boots whatever
partition is marked bootable, and this partition has Grub in its boot
sector.
OR, its is a GPT disk with an EFI partition, and it is the EFI code
which then decides to boot whatever partition is selected to boot. There
is a little menu to decide that should show before grub menu. If not,
there are programs to change the boot order.
You seem to be confusing boot scheme and partition scheme, as many.
No, I don't
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Boot scheme is either BIOS (using MBR boot code) or EFI (using an EFI
executable file on an EFI partition).
Partition scheme is either DOS/MBR or GPT.
I know.
Boot scheme is either BIOS (using MBR boot code) or UEFI (using an ?EFI
executable file on an EFI partition).
Partition scheme is either DOS/MBR or GPT.
if we are going to be punctilious ;-)
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Either boot scheme may be used with either partition scheme. BIOS boot
is not restricted to DOS/MBR, and EFI boot is not restricted to GPT. GPT
partition scheme also has a (protective) MBR, and DOS/MBR partition
scheme has an EFI partition type.
I know. I'm booting this BIOS only machine with GPT disks.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
I'm getting more posts hidden then show. I'm guessing the Mac cultist is proving the advocates right again. It is utter bliss to not read that crap. Why would Just Wondering need shills? He is the one who quotes facts for his side of the "arguments".
Just Wondering reported flatfish+++ years ago. As expected, it did nothing to derail the bozo.
--
Live on Kickstarter!
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.advocacy/smzXrBhsWf4
http://tinyurl.com/proof-about-ebot
Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
What Debian looks like can be skinned and not tied to its functionality, especially if it's open source.

I generally go post by post unless someone has a history of especially drastic bullshit. With Just Wondering, I already understand what his end game is, all he hungers for is abuse and, of course, he'll do _anything_ to get it. His go to routine is to play 'easy mark' but reality shows it is all of the group who are his suckers. Thankfully the person you are attacking is in my KF.

Now that nobody is replying to Just Wondering, he's making it sound like he's outsmarted Marek Novotny -- when in fact, people are just sick of his shit. If Marek Novotny has 'a.txt' open in an application such as emacs and you want to change its name to 'mack.pdf' via a proxy icon, Marek Novotny's suggestion might be useful, if only to build a set of script tools.

Just rubbish from him. But he has thoroughly left tech behind and is merely holding me responsible for the words of himself.

--
Top 15 Ways Just Wondering Trolls
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.development.apps/G2-ZXYAEyIM

Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
Steve Carroll
2019-12-22 16:57:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
[Please could you trim the quotes in your replies ?]
Post by Carlos E.R.
There are two main ways to make grub work.
In an MBR based boot scheme, grub initial stage is written to the MBR,
and then it loads the other stages from "other" places.
OR, the MBR is a generic MBR, or the Windows MBR, which boots whatever
partition is marked bootable, and this partition has Grub in its boot
sector.
OR, its is a GPT disk with an EFI partition, and it is the EFI code
which then decides to boot whatever partition is selected to boot. There
is a little menu to decide that should show before grub menu. If not,
there are programs to change the boot order.
You seem to be confusing boot scheme and partition scheme, as many.
No, I don't
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Boot scheme is either BIOS (using MBR boot code) or EFI (using an EFI
executable file on an EFI partition).
Partition scheme is either DOS/MBR or GPT.
I know.
Boot scheme is either BIOS (using MBR boot code) or UEFI (using an ?EFI
executable file on an EFI partition).
Partition scheme is either DOS/MBR or GPT.
if we are going to be punctilious ;-)
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Either boot scheme may be used with either partition scheme. BIOS boot
is not restricted to DOS/MBR, and EFI boot is not restricted to GPT. GPT
partition scheme also has a (protective) MBR, and DOS/MBR partition
scheme has an EFI partition type.
I know. I'm booting this BIOS only machine with GPT disks.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
I'm getting more posts hidden then show. I'm guessing the Mac cultist is proving the advocates right again. It is utter bliss to not read that crap. Why would Just Wondering need shills? He is the one who quotes facts for his side of the "arguments".
Just Wondering reported flatfish+++ years ago. As expected, it did nothing to derail the bozo.
--
Live on Kickstarter!
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.advocacy/smzXrBhsWf4
http://tinyurl.com/proof-about-ebot
Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
What Debian looks like can be skinned and not tied to its functionality, especially if it's open source.
I generally go post by post unless someone has a history of especially drastic bullshit. With Just Wondering, I already understand what his end game is, all he hungers for is abuse and, of course, he'll do _anything_ to get it. His go to routine is to play 'easy mark' but reality shows it is all of the group who are his suckers. Thankfully the person you are attacking is in my KF.
Now that nobody is replying to Just Wondering, he's making it sound like he's outsmarted Marek Novotny -- when in fact, people are just sick of his shit. If Marek Novotny has 'a.txt' open in an application such as emacs and you want to change its name to 'mack.pdf' via a proxy icon, Marek Novotny's suggestion might be useful, if only to build a set of script tools.
Just rubbish from him. But he has thoroughly left tech behind and is merely holding me responsible for the words of himself.
--
Top 15 Ways Just Wondering Trolls
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.development.apps/G2-ZXYAEyIM
http://youtu.be/prZeTJKpc3Y
Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
Carroll, 4/10/2015 4:04 PM:
-----
Cute trick... To the guy who hacked my Google account.
-----
No details. Seems to treat it as a joke.

Carroll, 4/10/2015 5:02 PM, <https://goo.gl/51rsmZ>:
-----
Email Hacking Is A Serious Crime
-----
No longer "cute"... now it is a serious crime. OK.

Carroll, 4/10/2015 5:07 PM:
By now he is posting more links to how serious this crime against him is.

Carroll, 4/10/2015 7:25 PM:
-----
I didn't write that.
-----
Now he is denying the posts from his own account. OK, he was "hacked". Someone else posted this. Hard to hack a gmail account given how they use two-step authentication and someone would need access to his phone or the like... but at least POSSIBLE.

Even then, though, if someone tries to guess your password Google alerts you and lets you know what IP address and other info. I know because someone in a Denver internet cafe has tried mine on several occasions.

Google even forces you to change your password when this happens. Very hard to hack these days.

So already Carroll's story is unlikely.

But let us accept it... someone somehow hacked his account bypassing the two step verification. This person did not, however, change his password and Carroll posted within an hour of the "hacker". Before that, unless he is an idiot, he changed his password and the "hacker" was locked out. The "hacker" got one post in.

But Carroll could not leave his story there.

Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:36 PM, <https://goo.gl/NJ2bMH>:
-----
Someone hacked my frelwizzen gmail acct so, for the time being,
don't trust anything from it.
-----
Wait. What? Even after Carroll figured out this "hacker" who was too stupid to change his password had broken into his account and Carroll *surely* must have changed his own password, he is saying the "hacker" might still have access. Might be able to break Google's two-step verification process *again*.

This is *very* unlikely... to the point of being unbelievable.

Even worse for him: he notes which of his accounts he is claiming was hacked - but in the past he has denied even using the other accounts! LOL! He screwed up and made it very clear he has multiple accounts and felt the need to note which one. He made the same mistake in the next quote where he speaks of WHICH of his gmail accounts he is claiming was hacked. Oops! If he only posts with one there would be no need to specify which one!

He has completely screwed up in his game to pretend he posts with only one gmail account. Completely idiotic of him, too!

Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:38 PM, <https://goo.gl/YA7gMO>:
-----
Some mentally deficient child hacked my 'frelwizzen' gmail account
so I may have to kill it. For the time being, don't assume
anything that's coming from it was written by me.
-----
He is still saying that he may have to kill the account instead of just changing the password which anyone with half a brain would have already done (and Google *forces* you to do when someone even tries to hack your account... I know because someone in the Denver area has tried to hack mine multiple times... likely Carroll but I have no proof of this). And he specifies WHICH of his accounts! He is directly admitting he uses more than one account! His claim of being "forged" with his second account is a lie. Proved.

Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:40 PM, <https://goo.gl/j6yCuV>:
-----
Looks like it's still being hacked despite me taking precautions,
I may have to kill the account.
-----
What makes it look like its still being hacked? And what precautions other than changing the two-step verification options does he need? And how would someone bypass this... is he really on the NSA watch list? Seems you would need someone at that level to be doing this. He watches too much TV where they computer hackers spend thirty seconds and bypass all security.

Just nonsense.

Carroll, 4/11/2015 12:05 PM: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/5QXJHXq8d1k/ujK_-8ZYUnwJ
-----
Apparently Google is having issues with their accounts to the
point where they're ready to undertake some additional measures.
-----
But, of course, no evidence of this... and what measures? They already alert users if someone else tries to guess your password and use two-step authentication and even force you to make a new password if it seems someone is trying to hack you.
-----
They're now involving several federal agencies in things they
didn't bother with previously in an effort to deal with people who
hack into accounts. They've asked me to leave the account open.
-----
So now Google is letting Carroll know how they are handling these things - and asking him to leave a *hacked* account open... one someone can be using to steal his identity. No. This does not pass the sniff test in any way. Even if they were doing this for some bizarre sting operation, which is in itself far fetched, they would have told Carroll to not make it public information so the hacker would not know.

Just insanity. His own story is so idiotic and full of idiotic claims it simply cannot be true. Carroll uses his secondary Google account - the one he accesses via Tor and is referred to as his Tor account - to have plausible deniability for things he says there. Now he is working to do the same thing with his main account. Maybe Carroll read a report like this: <http://cnnmon.ie/111QeT8> [money.com]. If so he missed the part where they note if you are *really* hacked, which is rare, the hackers change your password and lock you out. Why would they not?
-----
There's some new legislation that will help them deal with this
issue... which probably means more BS for us ;)
-----
Yes, new legislation to make sure Carroll does not have to deal with "hackers" and "forgers" which do not even exist.

The funny part is, this happened shortly after someone in the Denver area, likely Carroll, tried to guess *my* passwords and they did it from an Internet café (Google tells you the IP and that can be used to trace back).

My guess: Carroll is the one who was working to guess my password and figured this new lie of his was a good way to deny his own words even more than he does with his Tor account *and* a way to make it so if I had talked about him trying to hack my account he could say I was just copying his comments. "Proving" I read his posts... which for now I am to see how absurd his lies are. :)

Carroll, 4/11/2015 12:25 PM:
-----
The person who hacked into my Gmail acct. changed the wording on
this post. I've removed the others but Google asked me to leave
one standing for some odd reason.
-----
Here Carroll claims the hacker changed the wording on a post of his from *before* he had even claimed he was hacked. So this hacker not only can *post* for him but edit his old Usenet posts.

I call utter bullshit on this. Out and out lie from Carroll. And then Carroll says Google asked him to not delete these "hacked" posts... this is nonsense. Why would Google want him to leave forged posts in the public and why would Google not just keep their own copy? Even Carroll notes it is for "some odd reason" - yeah, because Carroll is telling stories that make *no* sense at all.

Carroll is lying. Maybe there is some kernel of truth to his stories? Even if so - and frankly it is unlikely he will ever show any evidence to back his claims - the details he is posting are absurd.

Carroll, 4/11/2015 2:10 PM:
-----
And he's so high he thinks people still have to manually enter all
their passwords in whenever they want to use anything that's been
password protected ;)
-----
Nobody had suggested, hinted, implied, or said anything like what Carroll says they did.

Maybe his story will be someone stole his laptop (or mobile device) and he had his passwords saved? If so why not have the device deactivated remotely? Why has he not said anything about this?

My guess: he realizes he screwed up when trying to guess my passwords and is now building a story so he can say his computer was stolen and it was not him. Or, LOL, maybe someone broke into his house and did it.

This unknown hacker knew he was obsessed with me and carried on acting like him. Makes complete sense, eh?

Carroll, 4/12/2015 8:45 AM, <https://goo.gl/KMf4pa>:
-----
The first one, that has since been deleted. My bad for having such
a feeble password on this account.
-----
Now he suggests it was merely from someone guessing his password - which contradicts his above insinuations that it could have been from a saved password on a device he had.

His story changes with the telling.

But as noted, when someone tries to guess your password Google has ways to deal with it. I know - Carroll or someone in his neck of the woods recently tried it with me.

Carroll, 4/12/2015 9:29 AM:
-----
The account in question here is a gmail account. Contrary to
Snit's delusions, I have no idea what a TOR account looks like but
it's a good bet it doesn't bear much of a resemblance to a gmail
account.
-----
Here Carroll plays stupid and pretends that if when he or anyone uses the Tor browser *Carroll* pointed to this somehow changes the way the gmail interface looks. Um, no. Worse it might do is make Google think you are in another country and you would have to set it back to English. But the basic look stays the same.

He is playing stupid and pretending to not know how the Tor browser he pointed to works. Just idiotic of him.
-----
That idiocy aside, I love how Snit has repeatedly, for years,
feigned ignorance about gmail accounts, yet, he keeps disclosing
info that proves he knows about them. Some fools do stuff like
this when they believe people are as stupid as the fool needs them
to be ;)
-----
I do not think Google would allow you to edit your Usenet / groups posts but I do not use it much and do not know for sure. Seems absurd that they would... and others have now said they do not. But given how I do not use Google Groups for posting why would I know the details of their system for certain?

Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:47 PM:
-----
Your obsession with me is insane. Working with Google I now have
proof you and ebot worked together to hack me. Clever. If I press
charges against you I have to also include her so you remain safe
for now.

Do not think this is over.
-----

No evidence of working with Google on this (and all out and out lies). Carroll is making public threats based on lies.

Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:50 PM:
-----
I promised COLA your trolling days were over so you contacted ebot
and worked with her to hack my account. I might not be able to get
your ass handed to you in court over this but wait until your boss
at Yavapai College contacts you.

Maybe you should make that call first. Ask about your comments on
incest.

See if those can not be quoted.
-----

Direct lies and threats by Carroll.

Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:51 PM:
-----
You went too far this time Snit. We have trolled each other for
years but to contact ebot and get her to help you hack my account
was over a line.
-----

A complete and utter lie from Carroll.

Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:52 PM:
-----
The above post is Snit hacking my account.
-----
A complete and utter lie... more false accusations from him.

Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:53 PM:
-----
You edited those posts when you hacked my account. Do not trust
anything from my frelwizzen account now that Snit and ebot have
access to it.
-----
More unsupported claims and attacks by Carroll.

Carroll, 4/16/2015 8:56 PM:
-----
Working with Google I now have proof Snit and ebot hacked the
account. Many of the older posts were edited. You can see evidence
of this by Snit pointing to "old" posts which have been modified to
say I claimed I was his "personal newsgroup rapist", a phrase I
have never used.
-----

No evidence of Carroll working with Google. No evidence of any older posts being edited.

--
Live on Kickstarter
http://youtu.be/E3m_i-x92D0
Jonas Eklundh Communication
Pascal Hambourg
2019-12-22 14:39:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
There are two main ways to make grub work.
In an MBR based boot scheme, grub initial stage is written to the MBR,
and then it loads the other stages from "other" places.
OR, the MBR is a generic MBR, or the Windows MBR, which boots whatever
partition is marked bootable, and this partition has Grub in its boot
sector.
OR, its is a GPT disk with an EFI partition, and it is the EFI code
which then decides to boot whatever partition is selected to boot. There
is a little menu to decide that should show before grub menu. If not,
there are programs to change the boot order.
You seem to be confusing boot scheme and partition scheme, as many.
No, I don't
Why then did you exclude the case of a DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition ?
Steve Carroll
2019-12-22 15:09:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
There are two main ways to make grub work.
In an MBR based boot scheme, grub initial stage is written to the MBR,
and then it loads the other stages from "other" places.
OR, the MBR is a generic MBR, or the Windows MBR, which boots whatever
partition is marked bootable, and this partition has Grub in its boot
sector.
OR, its is a GPT disk with an EFI partition, and it is the EFI code
which then decides to boot whatever partition is selected to boot. There
is a little menu to decide that should show before grub menu. If not,
there are programs to change the boot order.
You seem to be confusing boot scheme and partition scheme, as many.
No, I don't
Why then did you exclude the case of a DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition ?
Protected code is not enough to protect you. These morons get their thrill out of provoking emotional replies to their attacks, which is the very definition of a troll.

Besides Prescott Computer Guy, who doesn't know what I'm doing?

Socks that Prescott Computer Guy can't prove are mine. Why would I, or anyone, want socks to reveal what we all repeatedly say about Prescott Computer Guy?

Who are you even talking to?

-
Best CMS Solution of 2017!!
https://www.facebook.com/jenny.eklund
http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/BilkHelp.html

Jonas Eklundh
Steve Carroll
2019-12-22 17:12:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
There are two main ways to make grub work.
In an MBR based boot scheme, grub initial stage is written to the MBR,
and then it loads the other stages from "other" places.
OR, the MBR is a generic MBR, or the Windows MBR, which boots whatever
partition is marked bootable, and this partition has Grub in its boot
sector.
OR, its is a GPT disk with an EFI partition, and it is the EFI code
which then decides to boot whatever partition is selected to boot. There
is a little menu to decide that should show before grub menu. If not,
there are programs to change the boot order.
You seem to be confusing boot scheme and partition scheme, as many.
No, I don't
Why then did you exclude the case of a DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition ?
Protected code is not enough to protect you. These morons get their thrill out of provoking emotional replies to their attacks, which is the very definition of a troll.
Besides Prescott Computer Guy, who doesn't know what I'm doing?
Socks that Prescott Computer Guy can't prove are mine. Why would I, or anyone, want socks to reveal what we all repeatedly say about Prescott Computer Guy?
Who are you even talking to?
-
Best CMS Solution of 2017!!
https://www.facebook.com/jenny.eklund
http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/BilkHelp.html
http://youtu.be/GPPqvw8iEBs
Jonas Eklundh
Time to blame the Russians! Usenet is a sovereign phenomenon based on shared ethics that Joel lacks.

Promotion is a wonderful thing and consumer herd mentality is even better. Your system will crawl while finding a way to stop Joel. And it takes a long time.

This is clearly an amusement of mine.



--
Live on Kickstarter
http://youtu.be/E3m_i-x92D0
http://usenet.sandman.net/misc/postingtimes/Snit/Flooding
Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
Carlos E.R.
2019-12-22 18:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
There are two main ways to make grub work.
In an MBR based boot scheme, grub initial stage is written to the MBR,
and then it loads the other stages from "other" places.
OR, the MBR is a generic MBR, or the Windows MBR, which boots whatever
partition is marked bootable, and this partition has Grub in its boot
sector.
OR, its is a GPT disk with an EFI partition, and it is the EFI code
which then decides to boot whatever partition is selected to boot. There
is a little menu to decide that should show before grub menu. If not,
there are programs to change the boot order.
You seem to be confusing boot scheme and partition scheme, as many.
No, I don't
Why then did you exclude the case of a DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition ?
Wait, DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition? There is no such thing. MBR
booting can not make use of an EFI partition. Normally a UEFI system
switches automatically to legacy to boot that.

cases:

* MBR disk on BIOS system. Standard case. Needs no special partition.

* MBR disk on UEFI system. Legacy combination. Needs no special
partition, AFAIK.

* GPT disk on BIOS system. In Linux needs special BIOS partition to
hold Grub second stage, IF grub is installed to MBR (not if GRUB is
installed on a partition; but the installer will insist on that special
partition).

* GPT disk on UEFI system. Needs special FAT partition called "EFI
partition", which is loaded by UEFI prior to booting.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
Pascal Hambourg
2019-12-22 22:02:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
You seem to be confusing boot scheme and partition scheme, as many.
No, I don't
Why then did you exclude the case of a DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition ?
Wait, DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition?
Yes.
Post by Carlos E.R.
There is no such thing.
Yes there is. Otherwise, why did you acknowledge when I wrote

"Either boot scheme may be used with either partition scheme. BIOS boot
is not restricted to DOS/MBR, and EFI boot is not restricted to GPT. GPT
partition scheme also has a (protective) MBR, and DOS/MBR partition
scheme has an EFI partition type."

?
Post by Carlos E.R.
MBR booting can not make use of an EFI partition.
Please pay attention. I am writing about (native) EFI boot on MBR/DOS.
By the way, legacy boot by a UEFI firmware is just the same as BIOS
boot, so I call them both "BIOS boot".
Post by Carlos E.R.
Normally a UEFI system
switches automatically to legacy to boot that.
No. Normally a UEFI firmware sees the EFI partition and can use it.
Post by Carlos E.R.
* MBR disk on BIOS system. Standard case. Needs no special partition.
* MBR disk on UEFI system. Legacy combination.
Not if an EFI partition is present, allowing native EFI boot.
Post by Carlos E.R.
* GPT disk on BIOS system. In Linux needs special BIOS partition to
hold Grub second stage, IF grub is installed to MBR (not if GRUB is
installed on a partition; but the installer will insist on that special
partition).
* GPT disk on UEFI system. Needs special FAT partition called "EFI
partition"
Or a BIOS boot code in the MBR for legacy boot.
Steve Carroll
2019-12-23 08:31:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
You seem to be confusing boot scheme and partition scheme, as many.
No, I don't
Why then did you exclude the case of a DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition ?
Wait, DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition?
Yes.
Post by Carlos E.R.
There is no such thing.
"Either boot scheme may be used with either partition scheme. BIOS boot
is not restricted to DOS/MBR, and EFI boot is not restricted to GPT. GPT
partition scheme also has a (protective) MBR, and DOS/MBR partition
scheme has an EFI partition type."
?
Post by Carlos E.R.
MBR booting can not make use of an EFI partition.
Please pay attention. I am writing about (native) EFI boot on MBR/DOS.
By the way, legacy boot by a UEFI firmware is just the same as BIOS
boot, so I call them both "BIOS boot".
Post by Carlos E.R.
Normally a UEFI system
switches automatically to legacy to boot that.
No. Normally a UEFI firmware sees the EFI partition and can use it.
Post by Carlos E.R.
* MBR disk on BIOS system. Standard case. Needs no special partition.
* MBR disk on UEFI system. Legacy combination.
Not if an EFI partition is present, allowing native EFI boot.
Post by Carlos E.R.
* GPT disk on BIOS system. In Linux needs special BIOS partition to
hold Grub second stage, IF grub is installed to MBR (not if GRUB is
installed on a partition; but the installer will insist on that special
partition).
* GPT disk on UEFI system. Needs special FAT partition called "EFI
partition"
Or a BIOS boot code in the MBR for legacy boot.
Android, runs on the ChromeOS kernel. So yeah, ChromeOS is mobile. ChromeOS is a super computer. ChromeOS is a server. ChromeOS is a desktop. ChromeOS is growing in market share.

This is something you merely pretend to understand.

I can kill Sigmond with my thoughts.
--
Get Rich Slow
Automate Google Groups

http://youtu.be/IhOfBmWwCVY
https://redd.it/6sfhq6
Jonas Eklundh
Steve Carroll
2019-12-23 12:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
You seem to be confusing boot scheme and partition scheme, as many.
No, I don't
Why then did you exclude the case of a DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition ?
Wait, DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition?
Yes.
Post by Carlos E.R.
There is no such thing.
"Either boot scheme may be used with either partition scheme. BIOS boot
is not restricted to DOS/MBR, and EFI boot is not restricted to GPT. GPT
partition scheme also has a (protective) MBR, and DOS/MBR partition
scheme has an EFI partition type."
?
Post by Carlos E.R.
MBR booting can not make use of an EFI partition.
Please pay attention. I am writing about (native) EFI boot on MBR/DOS.
By the way, legacy boot by a UEFI firmware is just the same as BIOS
boot, so I call them both "BIOS boot".
Post by Carlos E.R.
Normally a UEFI system
switches automatically to legacy to boot that.
No. Normally a UEFI firmware sees the EFI partition and can use it.
Post by Carlos E.R.
* MBR disk on BIOS system. Standard case. Needs no special partition.
* MBR disk on UEFI system. Legacy combination.
Not if an EFI partition is present, allowing native EFI boot.
Post by Carlos E.R.
* GPT disk on BIOS system. In Linux needs special BIOS partition to
hold Grub second stage, IF grub is installed to MBR (not if GRUB is
installed on a partition; but the installer will insist on that special
partition).
* GPT disk on UEFI system. Needs special FAT partition called "EFI
partition"
Or a BIOS boot code in the MBR for legacy boot.
Android, runs on the ChromeOS kernel. So yeah, ChromeOS is mobile. ChromeOS is a super computer. ChromeOS is a server. ChromeOS is a desktop. ChromeOS is growing in market share.
This is something you merely pretend to understand.
I can kill Sigmond with my thoughts.
--
Get Rich Slow
Automate Google Groups http://youtu.be/hYQ4Tg0r0g0
http://youtu.be/IhOfBmWwCVY
https://redd.it/6sfhq6
Jonas Eklundh
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Pull up a record check on Prescott Computer Guy and you will discover that he was in the pokey last year. The sites do not go into that level of specificity and legal lists need to be subpoenaed. What did you expect from the lying imbecile? That Prescott Computer Guy nincompoop has nothing to squander but time. He has nothing else. Especially not ambition.

Prescott Computer Guy wants to hurt us: If Prescott Computer Guy can't play here then his flooding crap will. So many trolls are yapping about the Pulseaudio "UI" as if it actually could happen.

Besides Prescott Computer Guy, who doesn't know what Marek Novotny is doing?

--
What Every Entrepreneur Must Know
https://redd.it/6sfkup
http://comp.os.linux.advocacy.narkive.com/711dskzA/steven-petruzzellis-admits-he-can-not-back-his-claims-about-snit
http://youtu.be/IhOfBmWwCVY
Jonas Eklundh Communication
Steve Carroll
2019-12-23 19:18:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
You seem to be confusing boot scheme and partition scheme, as many.
No, I don't
Why then did you exclude the case of a DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition ?
Wait, DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition?
Yes.
Post by Carlos E.R.
There is no such thing.
"Either boot scheme may be used with either partition scheme. BIOS boot
is not restricted to DOS/MBR, and EFI boot is not restricted to GPT. GPT
partition scheme also has a (protective) MBR, and DOS/MBR partition
scheme has an EFI partition type."
?
Post by Carlos E.R.
MBR booting can not make use of an EFI partition.
Please pay attention. I am writing about (native) EFI boot on MBR/DOS.
By the way, legacy boot by a UEFI firmware is just the same as BIOS
boot, so I call them both "BIOS boot".
Post by Carlos E.R.
Normally a UEFI system
switches automatically to legacy to boot that.
No. Normally a UEFI firmware sees the EFI partition and can use it.
Post by Carlos E.R.
* MBR disk on BIOS system. Standard case. Needs no special partition.
* MBR disk on UEFI system. Legacy combination.
Not if an EFI partition is present, allowing native EFI boot.
Post by Carlos E.R.
* GPT disk on BIOS system. In Linux needs special BIOS partition to
hold Grub second stage, IF grub is installed to MBR (not if GRUB is
installed on a partition; but the installer will insist on that special
partition).
* GPT disk on UEFI system. Needs special FAT partition called "EFI
partition"
Or a BIOS boot code in the MBR for legacy boot.
Android, runs on the ChromeOS kernel. So yeah, ChromeOS is mobile. ChromeOS is a super computer. ChromeOS is a server. ChromeOS is a desktop. ChromeOS is growing in market share.
This is something you merely pretend to understand.
I can kill Sigmond with my thoughts.
--
Get Rich Slow
Automate Google Groups http://youtu.be/hYQ4Tg0r0g0
http://youtu.be/IhOfBmWwCVY
https://redd.it/6sfhq6
Jonas Eklundh
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Pull up a record check on Prescott Computer Guy and you will discover that he was in the pokey last year. The sites do not go into that level of specificity and legal lists need to be subpoenaed. What did you expect from the lying imbecile? That Prescott Computer Guy nincompoop has nothing to squander but time. He has nothing else. Especially not ambition.
Prescott Computer Guy wants to hurt us: If Prescott Computer Guy can't play here then his flooding crap will. So many trolls are yapping about the Pulseaudio "UI" as if it actually could happen.
Besides Prescott Computer Guy, who doesn't know what Marek Novotny is doing?
--
What Every Entrepreneur Must Know
https://redd.it/6sfkup
http://comp.os.linux.advocacy.narkive.com/711dskzA/steven-petruzzellis-admits-he-can-not-back-his-claims-about-snit
http://youtu.be/IhOfBmWwCVY
Jonas Eklundh Communication
Onion Knight suffers from waking drug trips so, to him, everything, even giving him back what he dishes out, are "libel". Who does not know this?

I am groupie of ChromeOS, because that's where all the thrilling programming is happening. Onion Knight has yet to show how Scrivener does anything above the minimum on Linux.

Recently I did work on and showed some AppleScript for the front end (only works on Linux) which is the only thing you can do when trying to avoid Onion Knight's nonstop crap while reading with Google Groups.



-
Do not click this link!!!
http://youtu.be/m37dF5X2S-4
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.development.apps/G2-ZXYAEyIM
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?email2=McNuggets&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailqa_contact2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&list_id=548787&query_format=advanced&resolution=---
Jonas Eklundh
Steve Carroll
2019-12-23 21:52:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
You seem to be confusing boot scheme and partition scheme, as many.
No, I don't
Why then did you exclude the case of a DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition ?
Wait, DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition?
Yes.
Post by Carlos E.R.
There is no such thing.
"Either boot scheme may be used with either partition scheme. BIOS boot
is not restricted to DOS/MBR, and EFI boot is not restricted to GPT. GPT
partition scheme also has a (protective) MBR, and DOS/MBR partition
scheme has an EFI partition type."
?
Post by Carlos E.R.
MBR booting can not make use of an EFI partition.
Please pay attention. I am writing about (native) EFI boot on MBR/DOS.
By the way, legacy boot by a UEFI firmware is just the same as BIOS
boot, so I call them both "BIOS boot".
Post by Carlos E.R.
Normally a UEFI system
switches automatically to legacy to boot that.
No. Normally a UEFI firmware sees the EFI partition and can use it.
Post by Carlos E.R.
* MBR disk on BIOS system. Standard case. Needs no special partition.
* MBR disk on UEFI system. Legacy combination.
Not if an EFI partition is present, allowing native EFI boot.
Post by Carlos E.R.
* GPT disk on BIOS system. In Linux needs special BIOS partition to
hold Grub second stage, IF grub is installed to MBR (not if GRUB is
installed on a partition; but the installer will insist on that special
partition).
* GPT disk on UEFI system. Needs special FAT partition called "EFI
partition"
Or a BIOS boot code in the MBR for legacy boot.
Android, runs on the ChromeOS kernel. So yeah, ChromeOS is mobile. ChromeOS is a super computer. ChromeOS is a server. ChromeOS is a desktop. ChromeOS is growing in market share.
This is something you merely pretend to understand.
I can kill Sigmond with my thoughts.
--
Get Rich Slow
Automate Google Groups http://youtu.be/hYQ4Tg0r0g0
http://youtu.be/IhOfBmWwCVY
https://redd.it/6sfhq6
Jonas Eklundh
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Pull up a record check on Prescott Computer Guy and you will discover that he was in the pokey last year. The sites do not go into that level of specificity and legal lists need to be subpoenaed. What did you expect from the lying imbecile? That Prescott Computer Guy nincompoop has nothing to squander but time. He has nothing else. Especially not ambition.
Prescott Computer Guy wants to hurt us: If Prescott Computer Guy can't play here then his flooding crap will. So many trolls are yapping about the Pulseaudio "UI" as if it actually could happen.
Besides Prescott Computer Guy, who doesn't know what Marek Novotny is doing?
--
What Every Entrepreneur Must Know
https://redd.it/6sfkup
http://comp.os.linux.advocacy.narkive.com/711dskzA/steven-petruzzellis-admits-he-can-not-back-his-claims-about-snit
http://youtu.be/IhOfBmWwCVY
Jonas Eklundh Communication
Onion Knight suffers from waking drug trips so, to him, everything, even giving him back what he dishes out, are "libel". Who does not know this?
I am groupie of ChromeOS, because that's where all the thrilling programming is happening. Onion Knight has yet to show how Scrivener does anything above the minimum on Linux.
Recently I did work on and showed some AppleScript for the front end (only works on Linux) which is the only thing you can do when trying to avoid Onion Knight's nonstop crap while reading with Google Groups.
-
Do not click this link!!!
http://youtu.be/m37dF5X2S-4
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.development.apps/G2-ZXYAEyIM
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?email2=McNuggets&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailqa_contact2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&list_id=548787&query_format=advanced&resolution=---
Jonas Eklundh
Anyone familiar with our history knows it's not generated in the sense flatfish+++ is claiming, and most of them are simply hand written.

He disturbs an entire group of people who are like the grass when elephants fight, but that's a narcissist for you. What flatfish+++ and you care about isn't a factor.

Despite my avoidance of CentOS, I even now continue to install it for newbies who've had difficulties with the Mac.

Until or unless Joel offers up his 'preferable' Linux tool for review, there is no competition, just wild assertions.

--
One Smart Penny!
http://youtu.be/E3m_i-x92D0
https://redd.it/6sfkup
http://youtu.be/m37dF5X2S-4
Jonas Eklundh Communication
Steve Carroll
2019-12-24 01:57:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
You seem to be confusing boot scheme and partition scheme, as many.
No, I don't
Why then did you exclude the case of a DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition ?
Wait, DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition?
Yes.
Post by Carlos E.R.
There is no such thing.
"Either boot scheme may be used with either partition scheme. BIOS boot
is not restricted to DOS/MBR, and EFI boot is not restricted to GPT. GPT
partition scheme also has a (protective) MBR, and DOS/MBR partition
scheme has an EFI partition type."
?
Post by Carlos E.R.
MBR booting can not make use of an EFI partition.
Please pay attention. I am writing about (native) EFI boot on MBR/DOS.
By the way, legacy boot by a UEFI firmware is just the same as BIOS
boot, so I call them both "BIOS boot".
Post by Carlos E.R.
Normally a UEFI system
switches automatically to legacy to boot that.
No. Normally a UEFI firmware sees the EFI partition and can use it.
Post by Carlos E.R.
* MBR disk on BIOS system. Standard case. Needs no special partition.
* MBR disk on UEFI system. Legacy combination.
Not if an EFI partition is present, allowing native EFI boot.
Post by Carlos E.R.
* GPT disk on BIOS system. In Linux needs special BIOS partition to
hold Grub second stage, IF grub is installed to MBR (not if GRUB is
installed on a partition; but the installer will insist on that special
partition).
* GPT disk on UEFI system. Needs special FAT partition called "EFI
partition"
Or a BIOS boot code in the MBR for legacy boot.
Android, runs on the ChromeOS kernel. So yeah, ChromeOS is mobile. ChromeOS is a super computer. ChromeOS is a server. ChromeOS is a desktop. ChromeOS is growing in market share.
This is something you merely pretend to understand.
I can kill Sigmond with my thoughts.
--
Get Rich Slow
Automate Google Groups http://youtu.be/hYQ4Tg0r0g0
http://youtu.be/IhOfBmWwCVY
https://redd.it/6sfhq6
Jonas Eklundh
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Pull up a record check on Prescott Computer Guy and you will discover that he was in the pokey last year. The sites do not go into that level of specificity and legal lists need to be subpoenaed. What did you expect from the lying imbecile? That Prescott Computer Guy nincompoop has nothing to squander but time. He has nothing else. Especially not ambition.
Prescott Computer Guy wants to hurt us: If Prescott Computer Guy can't play here then his flooding crap will. So many trolls are yapping about the Pulseaudio "UI" as if it actually could happen.
Besides Prescott Computer Guy, who doesn't know what Marek Novotny is doing?
--
What Every Entrepreneur Must Know
https://redd.it/6sfkup
http://comp.os.linux.advocacy.narkive.com/711dskzA/steven-petruzzellis-admits-he-can-not-back-his-claims-about-snit
http://youtu.be/IhOfBmWwCVY
Jonas Eklundh Communication
Onion Knight suffers from waking drug trips so, to him, everything, even giving him back what he dishes out, are "libel". Who does not know this?
I am groupie of ChromeOS, because that's where all the thrilling programming is happening. Onion Knight has yet to show how Scrivener does anything above the minimum on Linux.
Recently I did work on and showed some AppleScript for the front end (only works on Linux) which is the only thing you can do when trying to avoid Onion Knight's nonstop crap while reading with Google Groups.
-
Do not click this link!!!
http://youtu.be/m37dF5X2S-4
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.development.apps/G2-ZXYAEyIM
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?email2=McNuggets&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailqa_contact2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&list_id=548787&query_format=advanced&resolution=---
Jonas Eklundh
Anyone familiar with our history knows it's not generated in the sense flatfish+++ is claiming, and most of them are simply hand written.
He disturbs an entire group of people who are like the grass when elephants fight, but that's a narcissist for you. What flatfish+++ and you care about isn't a factor.
Despite my avoidance of CentOS, I even now continue to install it for newbies who've had difficulties with the Mac.
Until or unless Joel offers up his 'preferable' Linux tool for review, there is no competition, just wild assertions.
--
One Smart Penny!
http://youtu.be/E3m_i-x92D0
https://redd.it/6sfkup
http://youtu.be/m37dF5X2S-4
Jonas Eklundh Communication
Linux offers the least to the least.

Like most in COLA, Snit Glasser relies on biased media to concoct stances on politics. Ergo, he only thinks of and consents to the media accounts which also happens to be the ones which portray education in a very hopeful and brave view. Just some names the stalker has used
"Evil" John *
"Evil" Snit *
Big Crotch on a Small Fish
Cornelius Munshower
CSMA Moderator
Edward Stanfield
Fretwiz *
Hitman Hero
Measles
Petruzzellis Kids
Sigmond
Slaveen
Smit
Steve C *
Steve Camoll *
Steve Carroll <***@xxxxxxxxxxx> *
Steve Carroll <***@xxxxxxxxxxx> *
Steve Carroll <***@xxxxxx> *
Steve Carroll's Dog *
Steve Carrolll *
Steve Carrroll *
Yevette Owens
Yobo_Obyo
Rachetjaw
Little Mac


Who are you even talking to?

--
"You'll notice how quickly he loses interest when everything is about him. He clearly wants the attention"
Steve Carroll, making the dumbest comment ever uttered.
Steve Carroll
2019-12-24 03:45:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
You seem to be confusing boot scheme and partition scheme, as many.
No, I don't
Why then did you exclude the case of a DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition ?
Wait, DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition?
Yes.
Post by Carlos E.R.
There is no such thing.
"Either boot scheme may be used with either partition scheme. BIOS boot
is not restricted to DOS/MBR, and EFI boot is not restricted to GPT. GPT
partition scheme also has a (protective) MBR, and DOS/MBR partition
scheme has an EFI partition type."
?
Post by Carlos E.R.
MBR booting can not make use of an EFI partition.
Please pay attention. I am writing about (native) EFI boot on MBR/DOS.
By the way, legacy boot by a UEFI firmware is just the same as BIOS
boot, so I call them both "BIOS boot".
Post by Carlos E.R.
Normally a UEFI system
switches automatically to legacy to boot that.
No. Normally a UEFI firmware sees the EFI partition and can use it.
Post by Carlos E.R.
* MBR disk on BIOS system. Standard case. Needs no special partition.
* MBR disk on UEFI system. Legacy combination.
Not if an EFI partition is present, allowing native EFI boot.
Post by Carlos E.R.
* GPT disk on BIOS system. In Linux needs special BIOS partition to
hold Grub second stage, IF grub is installed to MBR (not if GRUB is
installed on a partition; but the installer will insist on that special
partition).
* GPT disk on UEFI system. Needs special FAT partition called "EFI
partition"
Or a BIOS boot code in the MBR for legacy boot.
Android, runs on the ChromeOS kernel. So yeah, ChromeOS is mobile. ChromeOS is a super computer. ChromeOS is a server. ChromeOS is a desktop. ChromeOS is growing in market share.
This is something you merely pretend to understand.
I can kill Sigmond with my thoughts.
--
Get Rich Slow
Automate Google Groups http://youtu.be/hYQ4Tg0r0g0
http://youtu.be/IhOfBmWwCVY
https://redd.it/6sfhq6
Jonas Eklundh
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Pull up a record check on Prescott Computer Guy and you will discover that he was in the pokey last year. The sites do not go into that level of specificity and legal lists need to be subpoenaed. What did you expect from the lying imbecile? That Prescott Computer Guy nincompoop has nothing to squander but time. He has nothing else. Especially not ambition.
Prescott Computer Guy wants to hurt us: If Prescott Computer Guy can't play here then his flooding crap will. So many trolls are yapping about the Pulseaudio "UI" as if it actually could happen.
Besides Prescott Computer Guy, who doesn't know what Marek Novotny is doing?
--
What Every Entrepreneur Must Know
https://redd.it/6sfkup
http://comp.os.linux.advocacy.narkive.com/711dskzA/steven-petruzzellis-admits-he-can-not-back-his-claims-about-snit
http://youtu.be/IhOfBmWwCVY
Jonas Eklundh Communication
Onion Knight suffers from waking drug trips so, to him, everything, even giving him back what he dishes out, are "libel". Who does not know this?
I am groupie of ChromeOS, because that's where all the thrilling programming is happening. Onion Knight has yet to show how Scrivener does anything above the minimum on Linux.
Recently I did work on and showed some AppleScript for the front end (only works on Linux) which is the only thing you can do when trying to avoid Onion Knight's nonstop crap while reading with Google Groups.
-
Do not click this link!!!
http://youtu.be/m37dF5X2S-4
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.development.apps/G2-ZXYAEyIM
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?email2=McNuggets&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailqa_contact2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&list_id=548787&query_format=advanced&resolution=---
Jonas Eklundh
Anyone familiar with our history knows it's not generated in the sense flatfish+++ is claiming, and most of them are simply hand written.
He disturbs an entire group of people who are like the grass when elephants fight, but that's a narcissist for you. What flatfish+++ and you care about isn't a factor.
Despite my avoidance of CentOS, I even now continue to install it for newbies who've had difficulties with the Mac.
Until or unless Joel offers up his 'preferable' Linux tool for review, there is no competition, just wild assertions.
--
One Smart Penny!
http://youtu.be/E3m_i-x92D0
https://redd.it/6sfkup
http://youtu.be/m37dF5X2S-4
Jonas Eklundh Communication
This is merely a pastime of mine.

I just configured a filter and don't see the flooding. mGhost's nonsense has made a complete cesspool of usenet via Google Groups, so I don't waste time replying to VPN dude Marek with my phone anymore. A good thing he has accomplished with this crap is that the mGhost ban will forever stay. mGhost's actions are in fact in all respects dishonest. There is zero dispute that as soon as any former 'plonkee' does one thing to confuse the poor pansy's feelings that they'll be blocked again. I bet mGhost thinks his wife's life was worse than VPN dude Marek's.
--
Do not click this link!
http://usenet.sandman.net/misc/postingtimes/Snit/Flooding
http://youtu.be/prZeTJKpc3Y
Jonas Eklundh Communication
Steve Carroll
2019-12-24 06:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
You seem to be confusing boot scheme and partition scheme, as many.
No, I don't
Why then did you exclude the case of a DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition ?
Wait, DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition?
Yes.
Post by Carlos E.R.
There is no such thing.
"Either boot scheme may be used with either partition scheme. BIOS boot
is not restricted to DOS/MBR, and EFI boot is not restricted to GPT. GPT
partition scheme also has a (protective) MBR, and DOS/MBR partition
scheme has an EFI partition type."
?
Post by Carlos E.R.
MBR booting can not make use of an EFI partition.
Please pay attention. I am writing about (native) EFI boot on MBR/DOS.
By the way, legacy boot by a UEFI firmware is just the same as BIOS
boot, so I call them both "BIOS boot".
Post by Carlos E.R.
Normally a UEFI system
switches automatically to legacy to boot that.
No. Normally a UEFI firmware sees the EFI partition and can use it.
Post by Carlos E.R.
* MBR disk on BIOS system. Standard case. Needs no special partition.
* MBR disk on UEFI system. Legacy combination.
Not if an EFI partition is present, allowing native EFI boot.
Post by Carlos E.R.
* GPT disk on BIOS system. In Linux needs special BIOS partition to
hold Grub second stage, IF grub is installed to MBR (not if GRUB is
installed on a partition; but the installer will insist on that special
partition).
* GPT disk on UEFI system. Needs special FAT partition called "EFI
partition"
Or a BIOS boot code in the MBR for legacy boot.
Android, runs on the ChromeOS kernel. So yeah, ChromeOS is mobile. ChromeOS is a super computer. ChromeOS is a server. ChromeOS is a desktop. ChromeOS is growing in market share.
This is something you merely pretend to understand.
I can kill Sigmond with my thoughts.
--
Get Rich Slow
Automate Google Groups http://youtu.be/hYQ4Tg0r0g0
http://youtu.be/IhOfBmWwCVY
https://redd.it/6sfhq6
Jonas Eklundh
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Pull up a record check on Prescott Computer Guy and you will discover that he was in the pokey last year. The sites do not go into that level of specificity and legal lists need to be subpoenaed. What did you expect from the lying imbecile? That Prescott Computer Guy nincompoop has nothing to squander but time. He has nothing else. Especially not ambition.
Prescott Computer Guy wants to hurt us: If Prescott Computer Guy can't play here then his flooding crap will. So many trolls are yapping about the Pulseaudio "UI" as if it actually could happen.
Besides Prescott Computer Guy, who doesn't know what Marek Novotny is doing?
--
What Every Entrepreneur Must Know
https://redd.it/6sfkup
http://comp.os.linux.advocacy.narkive.com/711dskzA/steven-petruzzellis-admits-he-can-not-back-his-claims-about-snit
http://youtu.be/IhOfBmWwCVY
Jonas Eklundh Communication
Onion Knight suffers from waking drug trips so, to him, everything, even giving him back what he dishes out, are "libel". Who does not know this?
I am groupie of ChromeOS, because that's where all the thrilling programming is happening. Onion Knight has yet to show how Scrivener does anything above the minimum on Linux.
Recently I did work on and showed some AppleScript for the front end (only works on Linux) which is the only thing you can do when trying to avoid Onion Knight's nonstop crap while reading with Google Groups.
-
Do not click this link!!!
http://youtu.be/m37dF5X2S-4
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.development.apps/G2-ZXYAEyIM
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?email2=McNuggets&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailqa_contact2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&list_id=548787&query_format=advanced&resolution=---
Jonas Eklundh
Anyone familiar with our history knows it's not generated in the sense flatfish+++ is claiming, and most of them are simply hand written.
He disturbs an entire group of people who are like the grass when elephants fight, but that's a narcissist for you. What flatfish+++ and you care about isn't a factor.
Despite my avoidance of CentOS, I even now continue to install it for newbies who've had difficulties with the Mac.
Until or unless Joel offers up his 'preferable' Linux tool for review, there is no competition, just wild assertions.
--
One Smart Penny!
http://youtu.be/E3m_i-x92D0
https://redd.it/6sfkup
http://youtu.be/m37dF5X2S-4
Jonas Eklundh Communication
This is merely a pastime of mine.
I just configured a filter and don't see the flooding. mGhost's nonsense has made a complete cesspool of usenet via Google Groups, so I don't waste time replying to VPN dude Marek with my phone anymore. A good thing he has accomplished with this crap is that the mGhost ban will forever stay. mGhost's actions are in fact in all respects dishonest. There is zero dispute that as soon as any former 'plonkee' does one thing to confuse the poor pansy's feelings that they'll be blocked again. I bet mGhost thinks his wife's life was worse than VPN dude Marek's.
--
Do not click this link!
http://usenet.sandman.net/misc/postingtimes/Snit/Flooding
http://youtu.be/prZeTJKpc3Y
Jonas Eklundh Communication
No one here has ever read my script, much less found a bug; still, in the dark recesses of my brain, I'm thinking, "I wonder if mGhost will question this". Joel is far too stupid to write a complex script. The only scripting he's capable of doing is flooding groups. mGhost has a lot of know-how to show and he wishes to give back to the community. What he has not figured out, though, is this is I think the worst locale for doing that because most of what he will get back is insulting, trickery, and other bullshit.

In spite of my own dislike of Ubuntu, I still continue to use it for people who have had difficulties with macOS, particularly if I know that they are not reasonably good at using the mouse and using window widgets. But when the data were collected, it turns out beyond any doubt, Joel was far more "neurotic" than even I imagined.



--
This Trick Gets Women Hot For You
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?email2=McNuggets&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailqa_contact2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&list_id=548787&query_format=advanced&resolution=---

Jonas Eklundh

Steve Carroll
2019-12-24 02:59:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
You seem to be confusing boot scheme and partition scheme, as many.
No, I don't
Why then did you exclude the case of a DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition ?
Wait, DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition?
Yes.
Post by Carlos E.R.
There is no such thing.
"Either boot scheme may be used with either partition scheme. BIOS boot
is not restricted to DOS/MBR, and EFI boot is not restricted to GPT. GPT
partition scheme also has a (protective) MBR, and DOS/MBR partition
scheme has an EFI partition type."
?
Post by Carlos E.R.
MBR booting can not make use of an EFI partition.
Please pay attention. I am writing about (native) EFI boot on MBR/DOS.
By the way, legacy boot by a UEFI firmware is just the same as BIOS
boot, so I call them both "BIOS boot".
Post by Carlos E.R.
Normally a UEFI system
switches automatically to legacy to boot that.
No. Normally a UEFI firmware sees the EFI partition and can use it.
Post by Carlos E.R.
* MBR disk on BIOS system. Standard case. Needs no special partition.
* MBR disk on UEFI system. Legacy combination.
Not if an EFI partition is present, allowing native EFI boot.
Post by Carlos E.R.
* GPT disk on BIOS system. In Linux needs special BIOS partition to
hold Grub second stage, IF grub is installed to MBR (not if GRUB is
installed on a partition; but the installer will insist on that special
partition).
* GPT disk on UEFI system. Needs special FAT partition called "EFI
partition"
Or a BIOS boot code in the MBR for legacy boot.
Android, runs on the ChromeOS kernel. So yeah, ChromeOS is mobile. ChromeOS is a super computer. ChromeOS is a server. ChromeOS is a desktop. ChromeOS is growing in market share.
This is something you merely pretend to understand.
I can kill Sigmond with my thoughts.
--
Get Rich Slow
Automate Google Groups http://youtu.be/hYQ4Tg0r0g0
http://youtu.be/IhOfBmWwCVY
https://redd.it/6sfhq6
Jonas Eklundh
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Pull up a record check on Prescott Computer Guy and you will discover that he was in the pokey last year. The sites do not go into that level of specificity and legal lists need to be subpoenaed. What did you expect from the lying imbecile? That Prescott Computer Guy nincompoop has nothing to squander but time. He has nothing else. Especially not ambition.
Prescott Computer Guy wants to hurt us: If Prescott Computer Guy can't play here then his flooding crap will. So many trolls are yapping about the Pulseaudio "UI" as if it actually could happen.
Besides Prescott Computer Guy, who doesn't know what Marek Novotny is doing?
--
What Every Entrepreneur Must Know
https://redd.it/6sfkup
http://comp.os.linux.advocacy.narkive.com/711dskzA/steven-petruzzellis-admits-he-can-not-back-his-claims-about-snit
http://youtu.be/IhOfBmWwCVY
Jonas Eklundh Communication
Onion Knight suffers from waking drug trips so, to him, everything, even giving him back what he dishes out, are "libel". Who does not know this?
I am groupie of ChromeOS, because that's where all the thrilling programming is happening. Onion Knight has yet to show how Scrivener does anything above the minimum on Linux.
Recently I did work on and showed some AppleScript for the front end (only works on Linux) which is the only thing you can do when trying to avoid Onion Knight's nonstop crap while reading with Google Groups.
-
Do not click this link!!!
http://youtu.be/m37dF5X2S-4
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.development.apps/G2-ZXYAEyIM
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?email2=McNuggets&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailqa_contact2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&list_id=548787&query_format=advanced&resolution=---
Jonas Eklundh
Perhaps you use it foolishly. Do you not understand the use of https? You do, of course realize that the massive floods ending up in multiple groups started out when Sigmond was quoted lying.

It was Sigmond who flooded Jesus Christ's site millions of times and pretended he did not do it.

Sigmond must understand that Jesus Christ can go get mySQL, right, sicko? On top of that, anyone can can get software to block his crap, which renders _his_ trolling useless, just like Sigmond ;) Clearly there are too many "let's attack Jesus Christ for no reason" people in this group and not enough users with the patience to help the people with psychological problems.

--
This Trick Gets Women Hot For You!!
Automate Google Groups https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/Petruzzellis$20or$20Carroll
http://youtu.be/m37dF5X2S-4
http://youtu.be/lF8yk7ul4Mw
Jonas Eklundh
Steve Carroll
2019-12-23 15:59:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
You seem to be confusing boot scheme and partition scheme, as many.
No, I don't
Why then did you exclude the case of a DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition ?
Wait, DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition?
Yes.
Post by Carlos E.R.
There is no such thing.
"Either boot scheme may be used with either partition scheme. BIOS boot
is not restricted to DOS/MBR, and EFI boot is not restricted to GPT. GPT
partition scheme also has a (protective) MBR, and DOS/MBR partition
scheme has an EFI partition type."
?
Post by Carlos E.R.
MBR booting can not make use of an EFI partition.
Please pay attention. I am writing about (native) EFI boot on MBR/DOS.
By the way, legacy boot by a UEFI firmware is just the same as BIOS
boot, so I call them both "BIOS boot".
Post by Carlos E.R.
Normally a UEFI system
switches automatically to legacy to boot that.
No. Normally a UEFI firmware sees the EFI partition and can use it.
Post by Carlos E.R.
* MBR disk on BIOS system. Standard case. Needs no special partition.
* MBR disk on UEFI system. Legacy combination.
Not if an EFI partition is present, allowing native EFI boot.
Post by Carlos E.R.
* GPT disk on BIOS system. In Linux needs special BIOS partition to
hold Grub second stage, IF grub is installed to MBR (not if GRUB is
installed on a partition; but the installer will insist on that special
partition).
* GPT disk on UEFI system. Needs special FAT partition called "EFI
partition"
Or a BIOS boot code in the MBR for legacy boot.
Android, runs on the ChromeOS kernel. So yeah, ChromeOS is mobile. ChromeOS is a super computer. ChromeOS is a server. ChromeOS is a desktop. ChromeOS is growing in market share.
This is something you merely pretend to understand.
I can kill Sigmond with my thoughts.
--
Get Rich Slow
Automate Google Groups http://youtu.be/hYQ4Tg0r0g0
http://youtu.be/IhOfBmWwCVY
https://redd.it/6sfhq6
Jonas Eklundh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512


- --
sex n
1. either of the two reproductive categories, male or female, of animals and plants
2. sexual intercourse
3. sexual activity or behavior leading to it
4. the genitals (literary)
5. the set of characteristics that determine whether the reproductive role of an animal or plant is male or female
- --

And, notably, Snit wrote:
"Sex is a subset of sexual activities" - Snit - (I guess he didn't comprehend point 3 very well)

Of course, he also wrote:
"Sexual activities are sex by definition, you moron" - Snit

And this:
"A passionate kiss could be called a "sexual activity" but it is not sex"

In Snit's world, a passionate kiss is not sex... but it is sex. LOL!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJVRYvKAAoJEC03b6bOr/+dgbUP/icm7kQOjm2kSNou+JmBBgHb
A4tmqQKGn3RwkS88wbmhuGrc7bj+Mn0olYmozNufRMG1hB+cjJR/a3K4qEN+hZP7
6KNdfvYKxSOcdtrsYEezCOPK6yu9tlwspR5w61vMaEWxmGX8CZ8FuZWnZhiul1CA
WXRpPDK8GJnWecK7wqDw8wJCKu4ENRw0AUTFWdmmGIUO1n3x/NSbCXIftMop4MBd
9NHP3v26pA5NB9tlh//BtQa8Ys03DASuViFd1VRgtuL4wSnctDDLUE4zQGp+GcS7
DOhjROy9ExDGqer4uLwPwDD59eUef8s4WI/XRivl2uQSl7rs/XWKw4OStOzXajGX
EMcJ4c9zPjtwKB2F781+U3DH2l9YLBii/UZCpgcblvvuXSb/b/7D64AxpzvEfPpZ
TTq/OcOEDsbhaOijEdELMw/IjuQ+Pp+5cMEOey7BK3uPAjr8gOLU0xmChJimNP8r
o9RzphsO8O+mJMK0sdke9FEJByCgX3LbJYro21v0ZS0Nt2JW16Z8VakHNKfUbuLg
IYHbShHiEQ1GCWOQ+AIfpwG6td/NE/EhiCE9OixWAsvGq6e0w4k7vARG8hSfZDpp
3hp7rD8x9EVp4v4e7G34Wr6FIZlfYzD2fX6SRu9wYpG/v87sgvrN9klY1YLn/zig
oZmOKJM5cC0iwnvHsavO
=4yFU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Puppy Videos!
http://youtu.be/VxLiH-x0aeY
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.development.apps/G2-ZXYAEyIM
Jonas Eklundh Communication
Steve Carroll
2019-12-23 19:03:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
Post by Carlos E.R.
Post by Pascal Hambourg
You seem to be confusing boot scheme and partition scheme, as many.
No, I don't
Why then did you exclude the case of a DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition ?
Wait, DOS/MBR disk with an EFI partition?
Yes.
Post by Carlos E.R.
There is no such thing.
"Either boot scheme may be used with either partition scheme. BIOS boot
is not restricted to DOS/MBR, and EFI boot is not restricted to GPT. GPT
partition scheme also has a (protective) MBR, and DOS/MBR partition
scheme has an EFI partition type."
?
Post by Carlos E.R.
MBR booting can not make use of an EFI partition.
Please pay attention. I am writing about (native) EFI boot on MBR/DOS.
By the way, legacy boot by a UEFI firmware is just the same as BIOS
boot, so I call them both "BIOS boot".
Post by Carlos E.R.
Normally a UEFI system
switches automatically to legacy to boot that.
No. Normally a UEFI firmware sees the EFI partition and can use it.
Post by Carlos E.R.
* MBR disk on BIOS system. Standard case. Needs no special partition.
* MBR disk on UEFI system. Legacy combination.
Not if an EFI partition is present, allowing native EFI boot.
Post by Carlos E.R.
* GPT disk on BIOS system. In Linux needs special BIOS partition to
hold Grub second stage, IF grub is installed to MBR (not if GRUB is
installed on a partition; but the installer will insist on that special
partition).
* GPT disk on UEFI system. Needs special FAT partition called "EFI
partition"
Or a BIOS boot code in the MBR for legacy boot.
Android, runs on the ChromeOS kernel. So yeah, ChromeOS is mobile. ChromeOS is a super computer. ChromeOS is a server. ChromeOS is a desktop. ChromeOS is growing in market share.
This is something you merely pretend to understand.
I can kill Sigmond with my thoughts.
--
Get Rich Slow
Automate Google Groups http://youtu.be/hYQ4Tg0r0g0
http://youtu.be/IhOfBmWwCVY
https://redd.it/6sfhq6
Jonas Eklundh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
- --
sex n
1. either of the two reproductive categories, male or female, of animals and plants
2. sexual intercourse
3. sexual activity or behavior leading to it
4. the genitals (literary)
5. the set of characteristics that determine whether the reproductive role of an animal or plant is male or female
- --
"Sex is a subset of sexual activities" - Snit - (I guess he didn't comprehend point 3 very well)
"Sexual activities are sex by definition, you moron" - Snit
"A passionate kiss could be called a "sexual activity" but it is not sex"
In Snit's world, a passionate kiss is not sex... but it is sex. LOL!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org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=4yFU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Puppy Videos!
http://youtu.be/VxLiH-x0aeY
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.development.apps/G2-ZXYAEyIM
Jonas Eklundh Communication
Does being "actually guilty" mean you have:

A) Been found guilty in a court of law
B) Broken a law / Committed a crime

Joel argues FOR B (actually guilty = committed the crime)
-----
What's CLEAR is that Justice Black is making a distinction
between a situation where a person has *actually* committed
the crime (what he calls being *actually guilty) and being
*legally* guilt.
-----

Joel argues AGAINST B (actually guilty <> committed the crime)
-----
The tough part to deal with is that you needn't *actually*
have committed the crime to be *actually* guilty in this
context.
-----

Joel argues FOR B (actually guilty = committed the crime)
-----
When Black uses the term *actually guilty* he means actually
having committed the crime. He is holding this up against the
concept of legal guilty where this isn't necessarily the
case.
-----

Joel argues FOR A (actually guilty = found guilty)
-----
Being guilty "in a legal sense", being found guilty "in a
legal sense", being determined guilty "in a legal sense" or
being *actually* guilty "in a legal sense", all mean the same
thing.
-----

Joel argues FOR B (actually guilty = committed the crime)
-----
[Justice Black] is drawing the distinction between legal
guilt and ACTUALLY having committed the crime... the same
distinction that *I* am drawing.
-----

Joel argues for... C? (actually guilty DOES NOT EXIST!)
-----
There is no such thing as *actually* guilty in this context.
There is only guilty or not guilty.
-----

Strange how one person can have so many contradictory views, and *still*
think they are being consistent.

--
Do not click this link!
Automate Google Groups https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/Petruzzellis$20or$20Carroll
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?email2=McNuggets&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailqa_contact2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&list_id=548787&query_format=advanced&resolution=---

Jonas Eklundh
Loading...