My laptop has an AMI bios and I had EOS running for about one year on it. I deleted all partitions and tried to make a fresh install. But now the bios stops the booting with a
It is not possible to install endeavor with secureboot enabled.
So you were able to do it previously.
Maybe by, for example, setting an Admin password?
Some firmware has funny requirements .. consult your manufacturer documentation.
Aside from advertising you did hit one thing .. it can be booted in a secure boot environment without extra work - this is because Ubuntu (being a corporate product as it is) has an agreement with microsoft which allows M$oft-signed shim to boot Canonicals own UEFI cert.
Nah, they were the ‘best’ at implementing spyware right into their desktop experience.
You had your desktop ‘start menu’ keystrokes being sent straight amazon.
( And being loaded and presented before local relevant results. )
And thats not hyperbole. That was just the default Unity experience.
And still the highlighted ability to boot (even the ISO) into secure boot enabled systems without any thinking/fiddling is actually ‘better’ experience-wise. But the whole trusted shim thing is not ideal as far as secure boot either.
When entering an admin password many more options appear in the bios and I could reset a whole bunch of keys and they gave the boot process free …
Since I still had Manjaro on the stick I tried to install it, which actually worked but Manjaro cannot deal with my hardware and I am stuck in the first boot process, something that doesn’t happen with EOS. I hope this makes up for my provocation in the title of this post.
And in any case the concept of any criticisms it might have are still separate from the issue of a random user who is not familiar with any of the related topics and simply does not understand why one ISO readily boots and another does not.
For “What can Ubuntu do better than Arch”, nothing bro, Ubuntu can do nothing better than Arch. If you mean the stability, then Debian’s better.
And, for the problem you’ve encountered, it’s because of secure boot, that Ubuntu’s ISO’s bootloader is signed with Microsoft’s CA certificates thus being able to boot without problem on your laptop. And yeah, my help can be limited - just consult your manufacturer documentation, because every laptop’s BIOS varies and there’s no precise solution on my end.
But there’s still one option available: modify the booting ISO of EOS manually, use the signed bootloader (e.g. the shimx64.efi and grubx64.efi from Ubuntu) to load EOS’s live system. This won’t be really hard but still requires some time.
You can use Ubuntu’s shimx64.efi and grubx64.efi and change grub.cfg in your EFI partition, letting it load EOS’s kernel. Then everything should just work fine.
title is a bit misleading but okay
By default EndeavourOS is not supporting Secure boot to be on .. you can manually set it up after initial installation, and may also with the install.
Not so sure, so far I’m confronted with one thing that Ubuntu seems to be able to do where Arch can’t…
I’m using sac-core in order to use a CertEurope certificate for eIDAS signatures…
Usage of Okular is partially busted until poppler 25.10.0 comes, and java signing has an anomaly on Arch where on Ubuntu the bloody thing just works… more or less the same bits jdk21 and the pertinent part of sac-core.
On Arch I can do one signature then bust with SIGABRT or SIGSEGV.
jsignpdf is an example where this happens in an available app.
Even opensc seems to act a bit differently between the two platforms…
I would say Microsoft are better at spyware than Canonical. Also the Amazon thing was only if you had the Amazon lens active, which you did by default, which is bad.
I think EOS is something that you can mold exactly suiting to your needs by including only the minimum required apps that you need to get started. Of course Ubuntu comes with this bare install nowadays which includes only browser and critical apps to use system.
As someone mentioned Unity, Ubuntu comes nowadays with Gnome and there’s option to decline sending statistics to the Canonical on first boot to desktop.
In the end, it’s about your preference. There’s distros for everyone and for different kinds of use. I think the original question about what distro X can do to compared distro Y is something that’s asked a lot in the Linux world.
I think it’s question for which there are as many answers as there are those from you are asking.
I think there’s not that much difference on installation apart from the Ubuntu’s installer option to install restricted drivers etc. during install. Both are fine in my opinion.
How not ? Ubuntu can install even child without additional experience with Linux. On Arch you need lot of that. Btw I am not talking about EOS, because OP pointed on Arch
I’m sure it can make my system look bloated compared to Arch
