[systemd-devel] Antw: [EXT] Re: Splitting sd-boot from systemd/bootctl for enabling sd-boot in Fedora

[Ulrich Windl]

>>> Jóhann B. Guðmundsson <johannbg at gmail.com> schrieb am 30.04.2022 um 12:03
in
Nachricht <b7b9b7ef-2be6-19f7-d48d-e514d87e3dab at gmail.com>:
> On 30.4.2022 07:53, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
>> On 30.4.2022 05:08, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>>> On 28.04.2022 10:54, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>>>>> * systemd-boot is an additional bootloader, rather than replacing
>>>>>    an existing one, thus increasing the attack surface.
>>>> Hmm, what? "additional bootloader"? Are they suggesting you use grub
>>>> to start sd-boot? I mean, you certainly could do that, but the only
>>>> people I know who do that do that to patch around the gatekeeping that
>>>> the shim people are doing. Technically the boot chain should either be
>>>> [firmware → sd-boot → kernel] or [firmware → shim → sd-boot → kernel]
>>>> (if you buy into the shim thing), and nothing else.
>>>>
>>> I guess "additional bootloader" in this context means that distribution
>>> cannot use sd-boot as the only bootloader for obvious reason - it is EFI
>>> only. So distribution would need to keep currently used bootloader
>>> anyway.
>>
>>
>> Distributions most certainly can become efi only if they chose to do 
>> so, there nothing technical that stands in that way.
>>
>>
>>> If current bootloader already works on platforms supported by
>>> distribution, what is gained by adding yet another one?
>>
>> Freedom of *choice*
>>
>> If the distribution allows users the freedom to choose from a set of 
>> components that the OS "made of" or runs, to fit the user use cases or 
>> has targeted use cases ( which bootloaders such as syslinux, u-boot, 
>> redboot etc. are aimed at ) then drawing the line at bootloaders makes 
>> no sense.*
>> *
>>
>> If the distribution does not allow users the freedom to choose, then 
>> it makes no sense to support multiple variants of components that 
>> provide same/similar function in the distribution.*
>> *
>>
> 
> On that note if you take the bug report [1] that has been cited in this 
> thread then it's quite evident that Debian is not about the freedom of 
> choice.
> 
> "We do not consider it valid to have a choice of boot loaders"
> 
> which immediately excludes ca 20+ Linux/(F)OSS boot loader projects and 
> thus**discriminates against the person or group of persons behind those 
> projects and even the person trying to contribute to Debian itself

Well I think "freedom of choice" against "support nightmare" is a valid issue
for the bootloader.
Probably you can install any bootloader for Debian, too, but you are (rather)
alone if something does not work as expected.

Reminds me of the classic IBM joke: "How many bootloaders do you need to boot
Linux?"
(Original was something like: "How many IBM engineers do you need to screw in
a light bulb?"; the answer was "100", BTW)

> 
> "Hi
> 
> I'm rescinding this request. I've got a working prototype, but I don't 
> know where this would go."
> 
> 
> The distribution is not even about freedom of information, which 
> prevents individuals from having the ability to seek and receive and 
> impart information effectively. ( to understand the how and thus the why 
> the conclusion was reached which for in this particular case *all* 
> bootloaders projects could look at the dialog, learn from it and fix 
> anything if it affected them or correct any misunderstanding that might 
> be happening. )
> 
> 
> "> Is this discussion public? Can you share it?
> 
> We unfortunately do not have a written record of it."
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> JBG