|
|
|
|
|
by sigcode
3603 days ago
|
|
Does anyone disagree that UEFI has the capability to be an OS itself? If it is only used as a "BIOS" then is it unreasonably adding the surface area for bugs and attacks? Is it much larger and more complex than legacy BIOS? Is this trade-off proportional to the benefits it provides: obviating need to for developers to understand backwards compatibility? |
|
As much as people like to rag on it, UEFI provides a lot of benefits:
- UEFI graphics firmware improves compatibility, and makes things like PCI pass through of GPUs to virtual machines much easier/possible.
- UEFI allows for much faster boot times by cutting out a lot of 16-bit mode/32-bit mode transitions that BIOSes generally used.
- Every operating system doesn't need to fight over the master boot record of your drive, with UEFI they can live in relative peace.
- Things that were simply impossible with a lot of BIOS implementations (e.g. Booting off > 2TB hard drives) are now possible.
It's over-engineered, but so is ACPI (IMO To an even greater degree). Does anyone want to return to the old plug-and-play compatibility mess?