Re: Boot Order
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 14:18:13 -0600
Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> wrote:
> On 02/24/2018 01:59 PM, Dan Norton wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > In my case, there are multiple debian installations and the
> > installer positions the last installation at the top of the *grub*
> > menu. This makes sense.
>
> Not always. I'm continually doing installs, tweaking them in one way
> or another. The last install is the one most likely to "crash and
> burn". I solve the problem by having grub installed ONLY on first
> partition of my ONLY hard disk. I'd love to see an os-prober which
> created menu entries in partition number order.
>
With your many installs, have you needed to edit the bios menu so that
you could boot something mountable? IOW is debian first in the boot
order?
>
>
> > But why change the *bios* menu? With the variability in
> > manufacturers bios code, changing the bios menu seems like a risky,
> > tricky, and tedious undertaking. AFAICT it's instigated by the
> > installer and presumably a necessary thing. I've searched for the
> > rationale, but have missed it, if it's out there. Can you refer me
> > to something?
> >
> >> But as far as I am aware, the relative priority of boot entries on
> >> removable vs hard drives is solely controlled by the BIOS/UEFI
> >> firmware.
> >>
> >
> > That just doesn't seem logical. There was a perfectly good priority,
> > before installs of Debian, I think it went:
> >
> > UEFI Boot Sources
> > ATAPI CD/DVD Drive
> > USB Floppy/CD
> > Hard Drive
> > USB Hard Drive
> > Legacy Boot Sources
> > ATAPI CD/DVD Drive
> > USB Floppy/CD
> > Hard Drive
> > SATA0
> >
> > After installing stretch, it changed to:
> >
> > UEFI Boot Sources
> > debian
> > ATAPI CD/DVD Drive
> > USB Floppy/CD
> > USB Hard Drive
> > Legacy Boot Sources
> > [...]
> >
> > If done by firmware, wouldn't grub or the installer have to tell
> > the firmware to put "debian" in the bios menu and make it first? In
> > its past life, this PC ran Windows 7 but in order to boot from
> > mountable media there was no need for the user to change the boot
> > order.
> >
> > - Dan
> >
> >
>
>
Reply to: