Roman_Gruber, feng: UEFI, mountpoints

[Roman_Gruber]

[Moderator note: this was originally a response to feng in Fresh install with EFI does not boot up.. This subthread was off-topic according to its initiator, so it was moved here to let that thread continue. -Hu]

Do not read as it may be off topic, just skip this post, thanks. I think this post and the post above should be moved to the dustbin.

...

I think you have not well understood the things behind the lines. That boot is already in use and has contents of the livecd usually.

ARE you talking of your experience which includes that you did that procedure recently, let's say last month?

Probably not, else you would not write such nonsense.

The gentoo handbook is just a basic guide. When the gentoo handbook would be perfect and would reflect every use case possible we would not need at all a hole subsection to installing gentoo linux.

Please do not start a flame war.

I do give my experience and guideance in my sparetime and give advise which is not that well written in the handbook.

--

As i do regularly backups, I recreate the hole partition layout, file-system, file system encryption and move the hole installation. So the hole SSDs can be swapped and the work can be continued. Therefore I have in detail insight on GRUB 2 from linux mint which is afaik 2.03 beta what i remember. I also have many years experience regarding arch-linux, several binary distros and gentoo on several notebook generations from AMD and intel.

The gentoo handbook lacks details and knowledge regarding setup grub and initalizing discs with uefi.

It is clearly that you have no experience with grub, have never really used it, never have really used linux at all or the shell. i suspect you are a linux mint / those binary debian / ubtunu user who just swapped over.

When you would have worked with computers and have had interests you would have grasped the basic concepts on how an UEFI / classical BIOS box boots and how the hole structure works. That is since SUSE 6.2 or earlier always the same, we talk about kernels dating back to 2.0.0.

Feel free to critize me, but you need to know more and know facts.

---

The dirty approch to mount an occupied /boot directory from a livecd with your discs boot partition is dirty, because, both contains boot related files, and how should a "newbie" can tell the difference if he has mounted the same stuff. This is a case for errors. When you rename the /boot folder from your booted up livecd, that folder is renamed, no errors can be made. Of course you can use the mount command to check what is mounted or not. I see this as classical flaw of the Gentoo handbook for example.

You clearly lack the look outside of the box.

It is nice to critize others. Many have not really crasped that you can also correct others without really offending. You may improve and look at some guys with much more posts as myself and see how it is done. this is a rare gift. I suggest you work on it.

When you write nonsense do not expect me to overlook it. /boot/efi was never ever since i knew UEFI a mount point. Thats fact. It is a directory and I stated it. Same with the /boot folder. It is a folder, thats it. There are so many ways of booting a box, so saying boot has to be a mount point is just false information.

[324874]

User: Roman_Gruber
Topic: Fresh install with EFI does not boot up.
Post: post 7983740
Reason: Roman_Gruber is disrespectuf (violation of guidelines: n°8 - no bashing, n°9 - keep on topic, n°10 - no personal attacks).
In this post, I feel like considered a conceited and presumptuous person, or even as a liar or as being arrogant.
Could you clarify the situation quickly? At least, about the key issue of the mount point! I didn't appreciate his behavior but I can ignore this one.

[Moderator response: Roman's post was enough of a mess that I skimmed it yesterday and, finding nothing grossly wrong, moved on. Having read through it in detail now, I will readily agree that Roman could have been both clearer and nicer in his criticism. I can certainly see an argument that his argument risks derailing the thread (#9), and that some people might interpret some of his confrontational statements as violating #8 and/or #10. I tend to interpret #8 and #10 in a stricter sense of addressing things like "User is stupid", "User is a jerk", etc. His claims that feng is ill-informed probably should have been written more neutrally, but to me, do not rise to the level of a personal attack.

For the mount point issue, what exactly do you want? I assume there is some question that you want a neutral third party to step in and say whose answer is right.

-Hu]

Thank you, Hu, for your moderation effort! I'm sorry if I was abrupt. I think be a moderator is difficult. -- Best regards, feng.

@Roman_Gruber: I will not hold account of your guilt for this time. -- Best regards, feng.

[324874]

PLEASE, share your opinion, feelings or impressions!

The moderators don't intervene (no answers). I find that the moderation process is too slow. I therefore seeking the intervention of the community. I want to know your opinion.

I posted a violation report. Let me know in this thread: a moderator can move the relative posts as necessary.

I want to solve the issue being fair. Thank you!

[Hu]

Roman: Moving posts to the dustbin is usually reserved for outright spam. Posts which contain misinformation should be countered by posting correct information, preferably with specific citations of what the original poster said was wrong, why it is wrong, and what should have been said. In situations where I think the misinformation is dangerous (such as commands that bypass standard security features, may cause data loss without warning, etc.), I might edit the offending post to include an inline note directing readers to the counterargument, to avoid someone following bad advice before they read the post warning them that the advice is bad. Nothing that I can see here rises to the level of dangerous advice.

That said, please try to be nicer when you disagree with someone else's posts. Even if you were exactly right, perfectly written, and the other person's post was a mess of misinformation, being right is no good if you develop a reputation that gets you ignored.

[324874]

I'm sorry if I'm abrupt in the following sentences. @Roman_Gruber: I will not hold account of your guilt for this time.

His attitude is unacceptable. Almost everything in his speech is based on delirious assertions (wrong, absurd, arbitrary)!

• ARE you talking of your experience which includes that you did that procedure recently, let's say last month?
  Probably not, else you would not write such nonsense.
  
• It is clearly that you have no experience with grub, have never really used it, never have really used linux at all or the shell.
  I suspect you are a linux mint / those binary debian / ubuntu user who just swapped over.
  
• When you would have worked with computers and have had interests you would have grasped the basic concepts on how an UEFI / classical BIOS box boots and
  how the hole structure works.
  
• You clearly lack the look outside of the box.
  
• It is nice to critize others. Many have not really crasped that you can also correct others without really offending.
  You may improve and look at some guys with much more posts as myself and see how it is done. this is a rare gift. I suggest you work on it.
  
• There are so many ways of booting a box, so saying boot has to be a mount point is just false information.

Then, he said the following irrelevant affirmations (off-topic or wrong):

[Hu]

When I said finding nothing grossly wrong, I meant I saw no obvious violations of forum rules. His post was not advertising or other spam, nor advocating obviously illegal conduct, etc. I did not evaluate the technical accuracy of his statements, or of yours. One or both of you might be exactly right, or completely wrong, about what OP has done or should do. I made no attempt to judge that. As I said above, I recognize that his posts were more confrontational than necessary, but in my opinion, they did not rise to the level that requires use of moderator power. Other moderators might feel differently, and might yet intervene if they think I am being too soft on Roman. I would have no issue with that, nor would I mind if this ended with no intervention. I am sorry that you are upset by Roman's responses.

To reiterate: I have not attempted to judge which, if either, of you are correct on any of the technical issues raised in this thread. However, I moved the posts discussing Roman's response, and the response itself (since, by his own statement, he considers it off-topic for the OP's thread) into a separate thread in the Gentoo Forums Feedback area, so that we can continue to discuss this to your mutual satisfaction without further hindering OP's attempts to resolve his problem.

[324874]

I prefer to keep some thought to not aggravate (degrade) the situation. I intervene again for a similar reason.
It's obvious that our positions* (affirmations and declarations) are incompatible. Moreover, in his speech, Roman_Gruber is contradictory.