>>101549143
archbabies on /g/ defend it because they feel smug having installed systemd-boot

Because our ancestor did not properly documented the Legacy BIOS hence the existence of UEFI became a thing.

alpine syslinux sisters keep winning

Also I just remembered that ACPI exists.
>Internally, ACPI advertises the available components and their functions to the operating system kernel using instruction lists ("methods") provided through the system firmware (UEFI or BIOS), which the kernel parses. ACPI then executes the desired operations written in ACPI Machine Language (such as the initialization of hardware components) using an embedded minimal virtual machine.

>>101549213
What. Anyway, the legacy BIOS was in 16 bit, it had to be replaced.

>>101549239
We're talking about thew firmware on your motherboard's chipset that loads your Linux bootloader in the first place.

>Much of the firmware ACPI functionality is provided in bytecode of ACPI Machine Language (AML), a Turing-complete, domain-specific low-level language, stored in the ACPI tables.[7] To make use of the ACPI tables, the operating system must have an interpreter for the AML bytecode.
God who comes up with shit like that.

>>101549273
>(((who)))

>>101549143
I see no difference between non EFI and EFI boot besides EFI adding retarded additional boot records into boot options menu. Additionally chaining boot loaders doesn't work so it's basically more complex and worse. You can't for example add windows boot option in linux boot loader and you need to use that retarded boot options menu to choose either linux boot loaders or windows. Also in the past someone fucking bricked his computer by writing to these EFI files on linux. It's dumb.

>>101549261
>legacy BIOS was in 16 bit, it had to be replaced.
And?