UEFI or BIOS legacy boot? Pro's and Con's

Hi,

before i installed Manjaro i was running Ubuntu with UEFI boot setting & Secure boot.
Then i switched to Manjaro and found out it doesn’t boot if Secure boot is enabled.
To get more information i read about UEFI and Secure boot and it’s development.
UEFI and even Secure boot seem to have security issues still. :face_with_raised_eyebrow:
Therefore disabled Secure boot and switched to BIOS legacy boot via BIOS settings and installed Manjaro without (U)EFI.

The more i use Manjaro, the more i see apps depending on EFI (firmware updater, USB boot sticks,…)

What are the pro’s of UEFI, and are the con’s (security) overrated?

pappl

  • the con’s with version Bios only ( MBR ) that is in fact most part UEFI with CSM
  • Intel has reported so many errors that it will be ONLY UEFI in 2020 on Intel platform
  • UEFI & SecureBoot need a shim install , in others words a public key from microsoft , unless we can sign on our Linux DE and that UEFI accept this sign

that’s why we still boot in only UEFI and no secure , but in some laptop with some any hardware bios can still remains master for PM or fan , like pci , wifi , etc even if this is UEFI only.

1 Like

I use BIOS/Legacy mode on all my EFI-enabled computers.
There is no noticeable difference to EFI, so I opted for the “simpler” solution. And I don’t need a /boot partition.

You can of course use UEFI without Secure Boot which is probably what is officially recommended here.

1 Like

All of my computers only support BIOS/Legacy so I never had to learn or try UEFI.
I consider myself at this point just lucky. :upside_down_face:

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

Forum kindly sponsored by