![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/9435667f7160374bc34a8600b686aecd.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
01.04.2016 21:21, Chris Murphy пишет:
What I'd probably do is take a cell phone screen shot of the boot manager menu showing only Windows; show the contents of tree -L 3 /boot/efi to show the ESP filesystem tree; show the contents of efibootmgr -v; and then point out that it's not conforming to UEFI spec section 3 regarding the Boot Manager.
Really? --><-- The boot manager can also, at its own discretion, provide an administrator with the ability to invoke manual maintenance operations as well. Examples include choosing the order of any or all load options, activating or deactivating load options, initiating OS-defined or platform-defined recovery, etc. --><-- Where do you see requirement that boot manager *must* offer interface to select anything? The only thing that is required is --><-- Boot Manger is also required to honor the priorities set in BootOrder variable. --><-- Which it obviously does in this case. It is also required to --><-- not, under normal operation, automatically remove any correctly formed Boot#### variable currently referenced by the BootOrder or BootNext variables. --><-- which it also does not do. So vendor implementation is fully compliant with spec. UEFI defines mechanism, not policy. Mechanism is various variables holding desired boot options. Policy - how these options are selected - remains at implementer's discretion. Which is one of reasons why relying on firmware boot manager for anything is so unreliable. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org