I recently bought a Gigabyte 970A-D3 mobo, I dont like it, and there’s plenty about google to say so especially regards using Linux with this mobo. I am currently using 11,4, I also recently tried 12.2 but didnt like GRUB2, as I found it impossible to also boot Mageira2 and 11,4 (on their own partitions) as well as 12.2. I beleive there may be a hardware or chip (Southbridge?) problem with this mobo. I occasionally get boot errors (11,4) regards PCI bus, where an old SB (ensoniq) sound card is inserted. I will forever use this card as it has its own built-in amp and the sound quality is much better than what some of my built-in sound chips on previous mobos produce. Anyway Im thinking to replace this mobo with a new one, There is a local vendor with good prices, but leans towards most recent stock and Windows suitable stock. I was looking at some specs for AM3/AM3+ mobos in their listing and they all seem to have UEFI BIOS, and according to the manufacturers webpages , some state “Windows 8 ready” Its hard to understand exactly what “Windows 8 ready” means, but from this statement will this exclude me from running Suse or Linux altogether? What caveats come with a UEFI mobo regards linux? I need a mobo with 2 PCI slots for use with my SB and TV cards, The TV card works well with linux so it has to stay, and PCI it is. I use a SATA 80GB drive to multiboot SUSE 11.4, 12.2 and Magiera, and use a 1TB as my separate /home/user disk… what trouble can I expect from a UEFI mobo with regards my preferred setup. I read the noises about Windows 8 only with UEFI, this is scary and wrong, but how will I know how to not purchase one of these mobos. Another caveat is that I regularly like to play and tinker and often reload linux’s, I dont want the BIOS (UEFI) to get in the way and make the whole process bothersome. regards, Shane, Brisbane, Australia
Hi,
in general, MoBos that can boot in UEFI mode, should until present still be able to boot in standard mode.
Has this changed?
And because your internal hard disk only has a size of 1TB this should work for you, although some manual adaptions
with regard to the location of the partitions may be necessary, in order to get the system running without trouble.
The MoBo I use, that is capable of booting in standard and UEFI mode is a ASUS-P8H67-V,
but that might not be that interesting to you, because it’s for intel processors, like the core i5-2500 that I use.
OpenSUSE 11.4 anyway seems to be difficult with respect to UEFI booting.
Good luck
Mike
Thanks Mike,
I dont know if it has changed yet, but the statement “Windows 8 ready” on Asus and Asrock mobo pages leaves some uncertainty.
I dont know if its means secure boot for Windows 8 only.
Can a UEFI mobo straight out of the box have secure boot for Windows 8 enabled, even if this bare mobo doesnt come with a PC system or OS?
Another question,does 11.4 and GRUB(1) play well with UEFI?
You indicated some probs to be expected with 11.4. Maybe GRUB2 can resolve this.
However I, like many others don’t like GRUB2, because just like Microsoft products, it hides stuff from you and you just cant configure it without spending a weekend reading about how to do it.
No longer can you configure it straight from within text files in /boot/grub.Where’s menu.lst? Its extremely difficult to set up multi boot, and once again, just like MS, it does things you just dont expect it to do from your basic understanding.
What happened to the Linux philosophy of user flexibility ,scope and choice, and running on old hardware.
As a sidenote I think too many Linux programmers these days are sitting in front of MS machines, and “inheriting” the mannerisms ,the feel and structure of an MS product, and passing this on subconsciously whilst writing a linux program.
I can see this "feel"in some linux programs I run.
Like a program that says "lets not let the user do this, so we’ll wrap it up in a database, or make it a binary instead of a text file, lets hide it deep in usr/bni/local/usr/apps/progs/…, and put another binary part of it in /etc/
This reminds me of GRUB2
anyway I digressed for a minute almost to the point of rant.
But what Im trying to say is about 18mths to 2yrs ago, it was much easier to just install 3 different distros on the one hard drive, each of them would see the others /boot/grub/menu.lst and just automatically add this menu to its own menu.lst. Bingo! all would play nicely.
Shane, Brisbane
Dear Shane,
Honestly, I don’t know in the end.
I’ve read a bit about it, and it seems, that it finally depends upon which signatures (for secure boot) are included on the motherboard by the manufacturer.
On the other hand, “Windows 8 ready” can not mean “Windows 8 only”, or can it?
A more conclusive question may as well be: can the motherboard still boot in standard mode (or in the “old” mode) ?
That is a question to which a clear answer should be possible by a seller!
Grub2 isn’t part of 11.4, because 11.4 is too old.
Further, probably as a consequnce of this, openSUSE 11.4 doesn’t seem to be much compatible with UEFI booting, e.g.
https://forums.opensuse.org/english/get-technical-help-here/install-boot-login/475347-error-occurred-while-installing-grub-during-os-11-4-installation-error-25-asus-efi-bios.html
I’ve openSUSE 12.1 running on a 2nd PC of mine, a Pentium III, which is really old hardware!
Of course not booting in UEFI mode rotfl!
Good luck
Mike
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 00:16:01 +0000, dwyersm wrote:
> I dont know if it has changed yet, but the statement “Windows 8 ready”
> on Asus and Asrock mobo pages leaves some uncertainty.
> I dont know if its means secure boot for Windows 8 only.
> Can a UEFI mobo straight out of the box have secure boot for Windows 8
> enabled, even if this bare mobo doesnt come with a PC system or OS?
It can, but if you don’t have Windows 8 it isn’t an issue at all - go
into the UEFI setup and disable secure boot, install openSUSE. Problem
solved.
Secure Boot is only an issue if you’re dual-booting Windows 8 (which
requires it) and Linux. If you have no Win8 in the picture, then it’s
not an issue at all.
Jim
–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
After what I read, an UEFI BIOS can even go online, which means a security risk.
So “no problem” in this case may even mean a worse problem, if there is no signature (or secure boot).
To get a signature for a Linux boot manager will here have a clear advantage.
Am I wrong?
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 01:36:01 +0000, ratzi wrote:
> After what I read, an UEFI BIOS can even go online, which means a
> security risk.
>
> So “no problem” in this case may even mean a worse problem, if there is
> no signature (or secure boot).
>
> To get a signature for a Linux boot manager will here have a clear
> advantage.
>
> Am I wrong?
From what I’ve read, yes, you’re wrong.
UEFI can go online, and does to update certificate revocation list and
the like.
If you don’t use signing certificates, then the fact that it updates its
CRL is meaningless.
Everything I’ve read says the user is ultimately in control of whether
secure boot is used or not. If you turn it off, nobody’s going to be
able to turn it on without your consent.
There’s a lot of FUD around UEFI and secure boot. While I do think that
ultimately it’s a bad idea (and intended to provide vendor lock-in), that
doesn’t mean that it’s going to lock you out of your own system if you
disable it.
Jim
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
If this motherboard does not support legacy BIOS boot, you will need to install UEFI aware bootloader and redo your bootloader setup. How much work it is depends on your current setup. So your best bet is to find out how to change to legacy BIOS boot and set it as default.
Unfortunately I have seen posts about new motherboards that will only offer you UEFI boot, no BIOS fallback …
If the BIOS can go online then this opens the door for possible exploits of that, doesn’t it?
Yes, but using a signed Linux bootloader makes multibooting with windows easier.
Just turning secure boot off would make multibooting with windows 8 uncomfortable.
Unlike me and probably you, the great majority of users still wouldn’t enjoy a PC with only Linux on it.
And honestly, I still need windows, because the scanner that I use to scan old photographs of our family
came with windows software only.
Many users will be in a similar situation.
So multibooting with windows therefore still seems to be a critical feature of Linux.
Secure boot appears to have been another threat in this respect.
… it’s more than ever the question: who profits from all that?
Yours
Mike
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 01:36:02 +0000, ratzi wrote:
>> UEFI can go online, and does to update certificate revocation list and
>> the like.
>
> If the BIOS can go online then this opens the door for possible exploits
> of that, doesn’t it?
Not necessarily. About the worst someone could do is issue a fake
Certificate Revocation. If you’re not using the secure boot
functionality, this isn’t going to cause you any problems.
Does that mean other exploits are possible? Sure, I guess - but then
again, you’re on the 'net reading this message, so your machine is also
exposed to possible exploits because you’re online.
> hendersj;2514948 Wrote:
>> If you don’t use signing certificates, then the fact that it updates
>> its CRL is meaningless.
>>
>> Everything I’ve read says the user is ultimately in control of whether
>> secure boot is used or not. If you turn it off, nobody’s going to be
>> able to turn it on without your consent.
>>
>>
> Yes, but using a signed Linux bootloader makes multibooting with windows
> easier.
> Just turning secure boot off would make multibooting with windows 8
> uncomfortable.
As I said, if it’s not a mixed Linux/Win8 setup, then secure boot isn’t
needed. That’s the specific scenario I addressed - on the assumption
(perhaps mistaken) that someone who is buying a UEFI motherboard
probably isn’t installing Windows on the system anyway.
> Unlike me and probably you, the great majority of users still wouldn’t
> enjoy a PC with only Linux on it.
>
> And honestly, I still need windows, because the scanner that I use to
> scan old photographs of our family came with windows software only.
>
> Many users will be in a similar situation.
> So multibooting with windows therefore still seems to be a critical
> feature of Linux.
>
> Secure boot appears to have been another threat in this respect.
Threat analysis requires more than “someone might exploit this” - I’ve
been doing computer security for a long time, and while here is a certain
amount of prudence required, it does nobody any good to state that
there’s a threat without wrapping that statement in the necessary caveats.
Which is why I specifically said that if you’re not dual-booting, then
don’t worry about secure boot, because a UEFI system doesn’t have to
have secure boot enabled unless you’re specifically running Windows 8.
> hendersj;2514948 Wrote:
>> There’s a lot of FUD around UEFI and secure boot. While I do think
>> that ultimately it’s a bad idea (and intended to provide vendor
>> lock-in), that doesn’t mean that it’s going to lock you out of your own
>> system if you disable it.
>
> … it’s more than ever the question: who profits from all that?
It’s more important to be aware of the FUD being spread and to not help
spread it. 
Jim
–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
On 2013-01-03 03:20, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Which is why I specifically said that if you’re not dual-booting, then
> don’t worry about secure boot, because a UEFI system doesn’t have to
> have secure boot enabled unless you’re specifically running Windows 8.
Not necessarily
I might be the boss of a site and I want to be sure my employees do not
boot a different Linux than the one the company installs.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.4, with Evergreen, x86_64 “Celadon” (Minas Tirith))
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:44:09 +0000, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2013-01-03 03:20, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Which is why I specifically said that if you’re not dual-booting, then
>> don’t worry about secure boot, because a UEFI system doesn’t have to
>> have secure boot enabled unless you’re specifically running Windows
>> 8.
>
> Not necessarily
>
> I might be the boss of a site and I want to be sure my employees do not
> boot a different Linux than the one the company installs.
Of course there are exceptions that could be made - I’m talking in
general terms about individual users using a personal setup. <sigh>
Jim
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
Dear Jim,
I understood you very well.
But I’m giving the bad guy now:
how many ones asking questions on this forum do not have a dual boot with windows?
Personally me would enjoy to have openSUSE (e.g.) running only.
But I’m not the rule, rather one of the few exceptions instead.
Currently I even think that it wouldn’t bear some advantage to have two PCs,
one with only a Linux on it, and one with only windows on it.
But that is not the way that Linux got widespread attention and use.
The bid is 98% windows users towards 2% Linux-only users (a guess),
if there wouldn’t be a dual boot.
That’s why I wrote that multibooting with other operating systems (mostly windows)
is a critical (or should I say salient) feature of Linux.
Of course secure boot is a threat then, but in the end it seems that ms still doesn’t rule the world.
Google may be next.
I don’t like canonical that much.
But with respect to secure boot they did a quite good job, I think.
Yours
Mike
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 21:56:02 +0000, ratzi wrote:
> But I’m giving the bad guy now:
> how many ones asking questions on this forum do not have a dual boot
> with windows?
I think a better question is “with Windows 8”, because that’s the only
place at which Secure Boot is needed.
> Personally me would enjoy to have openSUSE (e.g.) running only.
>
> But I’m not the rule, rather one of the few exceptions instead.
You and I both are perhaps the exception. I haven’t booted native
Windows but a few times in the past decade (I do use XP in a VM for a few
things still). I do tend to leave Windows installed natively (for those
odd instances where it is necessary), but don’t boot to it.
> Currently I even think that it wouldn’t bear some advantage to have two
> PCs,
> one with only a Linux on it, and one with only windows on it.
That’s also not a bad approach if you use multiple machines (which I do)
- but virtualizing the Windows installation is usually (IMHO) the best
option, especially on modern hardware where the performance hit is
negligible.
> But that is not the way that Linux got widespread attention and use.
Sure, but the way it used to be isn’t necessarily a good indicator of
what works today. Linux has also been very adaptive.
> The bid is 98% windows users towards 2% Linux-only users (a guess),
> if there wouldn’t be a dual boot.
>
> That’s why I wrote that multibooting with other operating systems
> (mostly windows)
> is a critical (or should I say salient) feature of Linux.
It’s an important feature of the bootloader, to be sure - I don’t know
that it’s a feature of Linux (or of Windows, for that matter) because the
boot loader is outside the OS proper.
> Of course secure boot is a threat then, but in the end it seems that ms
> still doesn’t rule the world.
>
> Google may be next.
>
> I don’t like canonical that much.
> But with respect to secure boot they did a quite good job, I think.
There are plenty of solutions either in development or in use. There
have been blog entries on how openSUSE is approaching it as well.
The important thing is not to treat Secure Boot like it’s the “end of the
world” - that’s the kind of FUD I’m talking about.
Jim
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
On 2013-01-03 20:15, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:44:09 +0000, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> Not necessarily
>>
>> I might be the boss of a site and I want to be sure my employees do not
>> boot a different Linux than the one the company installs.
>
> Of course there are exceptions that could be made - I’m talking in
> general terms about individual users using a personal setup. <sigh>
Ok, then substitute boss for parents and kids 
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.4, with Evergreen, x86_64 “Celadon” (Minas Tirith))
On 2013-01-03 23:34, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 21:56:02 +0000, ratzi wrote:
>
>> But I’m giving the bad guy now:
>> how many ones asking questions on this forum do not have a dual boot
>> with windows?
>
> I think a better question is “with Windows 8”, because that’s the only
> place at which Secure Boot is needed.
I don’t use Windows 8 yet, because and I still can boot W7. Different
circumstances, different timing, and I would be using 8. Not my choice…
>> Currently I even think that it wouldn’t bear some advantage to have two PCs,
>> one with only a Linux on it, and one with only windows on it.
>
> That’s also not a bad approach if you use multiple machines (which I do)
> - but virtualizing the Windows installation is usually (IMHO) the best
> option, especially on modern hardware where the performance hit is
> negligible.
The tools I need to use Windows do not run virtualized. :-/
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.4, with Evergreen, x86_64 “Celadon” (Minas Tirith))
Dear Jim !
Of course you’re right, but on the other hand, windows 8, 9, 10, … is what’s ahead,
as well as openSUSE 13, 14, 15, …
Microsoft tried to turn it upside down, i.e. to get Linux running in a VM of windows,
didn’t they?
Still the daily need of a user is to get a first operating system running.
Hopefully this OS will be openSUSE / Linux.
Yes, Linux has indeed been adaptive, and that’s a major reason that I’m writing this to you now,
because Linux survived.
If Linux wouldn’t be adaptive in the future, surviving would get much harder.
It’s really not, that I like ms !!
It’s just the bulk of the crowd of users doing what’s most comfortable.
That’s the first step to win those, and ever will be.
If the bulk of the users wouldn’t like to try openSUSE (i.e. Linux) anymore,
then it would be hard to find any more sponsors to pay employees working on Linux.
This would make the job of developing Linux further much harder.
You’re for sure aware that GRUB or LILO have never been part of Microsoft Windows !
Secure Boot doesn’t seem to be the “end of the world”.
However Linux distros have to cope with that,
or hardly no one will use them any more.
Be sure, I like Linux and especially openSUSE.
I would like these to be around in 10 or even 20 years still !!
Mike
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 23:46:01 +0000, ratzi wrote:
> Of course you’re right, but on the other hand, windows 8, 9, 10, … is
> what’s ahead,
> as well as openSUSE 13, 14, 15, …
We can only really discuss what’s currently available, though. Who knows
what MS will do with future releases? They’ve been known to change
things between beta and FCS, so best to focus on what we know rather than
conjecture about what they might do down the road.
> Microsoft tried to turn it upside down, i.e. to get Linux running in a
> VM of windows,
> didn’t they?
Not really, some people choose to go that route. [shrug] Personal
choice.
> Still the daily need of a user is to get a first operating system
> running.
> Hopefully this OS will be openSUSE / Linux.
Well, no, the daily need of a user is to run applications.
> hendersj;2515355 Wrote:
>> > But that is not the way that Linux got widespread attention and use.
>>
>> Sure, but the way it used to be isn’t necessarily a good indicator of
>> what works today. Linux has also been very adaptive.
>
> Yes, Linux has indeed been adaptive, and that’s a major reason that I’m
> writing this to you now,
> because Linux survived.
>
> If Linux wouldn’t be adaptive in the future, surviving would get much
> harder.
>
> It’s really not, that I like ms !!
>
> It’s just the bulk of the crowd of users doing what’s most comfortable.
>
> That’s the first step to win those, and ever will be.
>
> If the bulk of the users wouldn’t like to try openSUSE (i.e. Linux)
> anymore,
> then it would be hard to find any more sponsors to pay employees working
> on Linux.
> This would make the job of developing Linux further much harder.
Linux existed before there were corporate sponsors. It still holds a
relatively small share of the market - something I credit to MS keeping
the Linux vendors fighting for Windows’ table scraps. But that’s another
discussion entirely.
> hendersj;2515355 Wrote:
>> > The bid is 98% windows users towards 2% Linux-only users (a guess),
>> > if there wouldn’t be a dual boot.
>> >
>> > That’s why I wrote that multibooting with other operating systems
>> > (mostly windows)
>> > is a critical (or should I say salient) feature of Linux.
>>
>> It’s an important feature of the bootloader, to be sure - I don’t know
>> that it’s a feature of Linux (or of Windows, for that matter) because
>> the boot loader is outside the OS proper.
>
> You’re for sure aware that GRUB or LILO have never been part of
> Microsoft Windows !
Yes, and they’re not really part of Linux either. Any more than U-Boot
is part of Linux (that’s the boot loader my router uses to start its
Linux kernel). They store some stuff in a filesystem that Linux uses,
but so what? Show me the running process on a booted Linux system that’s
“Grub” or “LILO” or “Grub2”. You won’t be able to, because there isn’t
one.
> hendersj;2515355 Wrote:
>> The important thing is not to treat Secure Boot like it’s the “end of
>> the world” - that’s the kind of FUD I’m talking about.
>
> Secure Boot doesn’t seem to be the “end of the world”.
> However Linux distros have to cope with that,
> or hardly no one will use them any more.
Of course they have to deal with it. And they are, by using a boot
loader that is capable of being used in a secure boot configuration.
> Be sure, I like Linux and especially openSUSE.
>
> I would like these to be around in 10 or even 20 years still !!
I’ve no doubt they will be.
Jim
–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 23:08:10 +0000, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> I think a better question is “with Windows 8”, because that’s the only
>> place at which Secure Boot is needed.
>
> I don’t use Windows 8 yet, because and I still can boot W7. Different
> circumstances, different timing, and I would be using 8. Not my
> choice…
[shrug] I don’t see what this has to do with the discussion at hand,
Carlos. Since you “can boot W7”, you don’t even need secure boot,
regardless of whether your system has UEFI or not. So you should have no
problem at all with it…
>>> Currently I even think that it wouldn’t bear some advantage to have
>>> two PCs,
>>> one with only a Linux on it, and one with only windows on it.
>>
>> That’s also not a bad approach if you use multiple machines (which I
>> do)
>> - but virtualizing the Windows installation is usually (IMHO) the best
>> option, especially on modern hardware where the performance hit is
>> negligible.
>
> The tools I need to use Windows do not run virtualized. :-/
And I’ve said those kinds of things exist - indeed, that’s why I keep
Windows installed on my hard drive at all when I boot into Linux and run
it 100% of the time. I used to own a BlackBerry, and flashing that thing
from a VM was impossible - it had to be native Windows.
But those kinds of tools are actually pretty rare outside of very
specialized uses (for example, the exam drivers used in testing centers
absolutely require Windows on bare metal for the implementation of their
anti-cheating components to prevent screenshots and the recording of item
banks).
Jim
–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 23:04:09 +0000, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2013-01-03 20:15, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:44:09 +0000, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
>>> Not necessarily
>>>
>>> I might be the boss of a site and I want to be sure my employees do
>>> not boot a different Linux than the one the company installs.
>>
>> Of course there are exceptions that could be made - I’m talking in
>> general terms about individual users using a personal setup. <sigh>
>
> Ok, then substitute boss for parents and kids
Again, talking in general terms. In general, kids either operate their
own equipment (if they’re old enough), or their parents set up and
operate the system, and the kids are users.
That’s still not the general use case of “I bought this computer and
installed my OS of choice on it” that most hobbyist users are in.
I don’t see a need to pick nits over corner cases where the general rule
doesn’t hold. I’m sure I could come up with some unusual corner cases
myself - that doesn’t invalidate the general usage that I’m describing.
Jim
–
Jim Henderson
openSUSE Forums Administrator
Forum Use Terms & Conditions at http://tinyurl.com/openSUSE-T-C