Please help with not booting from USB so to install Debian

[Bret Busby]

On 10/6/23 07:32, Liam Proven wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 17:19, Bret Busby <bret at busby.net> wrote:
>>>
>> Thank you for that, Liam.
> 
> Happy to help;
> 
>> I have posted the URL for the message above, in the list archive, to the
>> Debian list, for the particular user (and, anyone else interested), to
>> read the message (and, so that they can follow the stepwise procedure),
>> with the additional step, which, whilst it occurs to some of us, might
>> not occur to all;
> 
> NP.
> 
> The trouble with this bit:
> 
>> "
>> and, of course, after that procedure, in the system UEFI/BIOS, change
>> the boot order to
>>
>> USB drive
>> Optical (eg, DVD) drive (if the computer has one)
>> HDD
>>
>> so that the computer should attempt to boot from the respective drives,
>> in that order.
>> "
>>
>> which, I suggest, would be worthwhile to add to the stepwise procedure,
> 
> The trouble is... troubles are...
> 
> "Boot device order" is a BIOS concept.
> 
> It *might* have an equivalent in a UEFI machine but it is by no means
> guaranteed. It depends entirely on the vendor and revision of the
> UEFI.
> 
> Some have a drive (or device) sequence; some don't.
> 
> Some mix in UEFI ESP boot entries to the above list; some don't.
> 
> Some have *only* a list of UEFI entries, no drives. Some let you
> reorder this; some don't. Some let you reorder it, then ignore it and
> boot the newest or the most recently updated or the one whose
> partition is current or some other criterion I can't identify.
> 
> Some have one list of legacy boot and a different list for UEFI boot.
> Some, the lists will change depending which you pick to be tried
> first. Some ignore what you pick.
> 
> UEFI is a bit of a mess. UEFI is Intel's firmware for Itanium, called
> EFI and 100% proprietary, ported to x86, standardised and allegedly
> opened up.
> 
> Or, as I see it, UEFI is Intel's revenge on AMD for getting to set the
> x86-64 standard, and Microsoft seized on it as a way to stab Linux and
> FOSS OSes in the back, as is the company's style for getting on half a
> century. The leopard does not change its spots.
> 
>   So, no, your suggestion does not work and that is why I did not even
> attempt to suggest it. UEFI is far too variable and uncertain to give
> any generic advice like this, sadly.
> 
> The best advice is: insert the medium, reboot, and try hammering away
> on the F12 key during POST to get at the menu to set a temporary boot
> device. If that doesn't work, try F2, Esc, F10, Del... or Google your
> machine's make/model to find the keystroke.
> 
> I am still learning my way around UEFI. I am reasonably happy I know
> how to make a machine boot from it now, and I have reconstructed
> working ESPs by hand successfully.
> 
> But one of the main things it's taught me is that most fans and
> advocates of UEFI have seen very little of the vast variety of UEFI
> firmware out there, don't know how messy and inconsistent it is, and
> have only thought about booting Their One Favourite OS on it (whatever
> that is, doesn't matter) -- they have not investigated dual booting
> much, or booting >2 OSes, or booting >2 related distros, or using
> non-signed bootloaders, and so on. They have no real idea how bad it
> is, and that's why they advocate it: from ignorance. They don't care,
> either. No OS other than their favourite matters.
> 
> In the brave new world of legacy-free firmware, it is still the Wild
> West and there is no sheriff to bring order.
> 
> Worse... it isn't even "universal" at all. Chromebooks don't use it.
> Very few x86-32 machines use it, but some do, and there are also
> x86-64 machines with 32-bit UEFI, and Linux does *not* like that
> combination *at all*. Basically *no* Arm32 hardware uses it, and very
> little Arm64 hardware does.
> 
> So while it's a thing, except for x86-64 PC compatibles where it's a
> total mess, on anything else, it's probably not even there at all.
> 

Okay.

Thank you for that.

I am glad that I managed to get Linux installed on the computers that I 
have, so far, which do not have Win11 installed.

The only computer with which I had a problem with BIOS or UEFI, and, 
booting, is the HP laptop that I mentioned, some time ago, as being 
problematic. I seem to have somehow, with the weird, complex, and, 
mostly obscurantist BIOS thing that it has, blundered my way into 
getting it to boot into the Linux (Linux Mint Mate 21.1) installation, 
but, not into anything else. It seems to have abandoned, or, gone 
directly through, GRUB, without any GRUB options on bootup - it simply 
boots directly into the Linux installation.

As that is the operating system that I primarily am using, I am not 
overly concerned that it will not now boot into anything else, as I do 
not use MS Windows, and, I had had no luck with the two BSD's that I had 
tried - I could not get MidnightBSD to boot from the Ventoy drive - it 
was a botch up - I think that is due to the iso being too small - about 
1GB; thence, I assume, lacking necessary drivers, and, GhostBSD that I 
could boot, is worthless, as it does not include in the iso, any network 
software, so I could not do anything with it, other than play with it, 
as a live, standalone (not connected to any networking - not being able 
to connect to any networking, as it does not contain any networking), toy.

But, I can run the Linux installation on it, so, while that works, I 
intend to not try to fix anything on it, to facilitate multiple booting 
or even, trying again top boot from an external device; just upgrading 
the OS version, as required, for as long as it works.

The HP/MS conspiracy to prevent other OS's being run or installed, seems 
to have backfired on them, as I can now, only run the Linux 
installation, and, can no longer access the MS Windows (10) installation.

So, whilst it does not work exactly as I had wanted it to work, the 
Linux installation does work (at present), so, I figure it is best to 
simply leave it as is, and, keep updating the Linux installation, as 
required.

The whole of the UEFI thing, from what you have said, appears to be 
gratuitously complex and unusable (that is, unusable as far as a system 
administrator trying to work with it, goes), and, designed to be fudged, 
or, to obtain a working system, by blundering through until a workable 
system is achieved, without any idea of what is happening, or, how the 
workable system is achieved.

So, thank you for your advice, and, I am glad that I have somehow, got 
these computers working as well as I have managed to get them working.

And, hopefully,people will follow the procedure that you have provided, 
and, if what I have additionally suggested, does not work with their 
particular system(s), simply ignore my additional suggestion, and, 
achieve the system that they seek.

..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..............