192gb is windows 7

I know that windows won't support more than 192GB

Windows is shit then.

Technically it can handle up to 16 exabytes

I guess I won't outgrow 64 bit in my lifetime then.

I know that windows won't support more than 192GB

It does, they made an artificial limitation for it so you cant use more than it unless you buy specialized licenses.

You can even unlock windows to use more ram by patching the kernel, easy.

It does, they made an artificial limitation for it so you cant use more than it unless you buy specialized licenses.

All the more reason why they suck.

You can even unlock windows to use more ram by patching the kernel, easy.

It would seem that someone who would use that amount of RAM would buy a license too instead of relying on a self made patch. (seriously why would anyone even use that amount on anything other than a server or a supercomputer and windows is mostly not used on any of these)

Okay. I'm using Cinnamon at the moment, so yeah, I can look and tell.

Sorry, I didn't see that message =) When you'll have time, just could you check that list item with 'Right Win' key ?) Thank you very much . Sorry for disturbing.

It would seem that someone who would use that amount of RAM would buy a license too instead of relying on a self made patch. (seriously why would anyone even use that amount on anything other than a server or a supercomputer and windows is mostly not used on any of these)

You laugh. Windows runs on way too much crap because you get more "if it breaks you can say you werent responsible" certifications for it.

like the UEFI boot menu

not worth it for the UEFI boot menu only. That's a win-win for people that have dual-boot configured (mostly Windows as a 2nd boot option)

Unlike using RHEL linux its the "you cant be fired for using IBM because its 'Industry standard shit'"

Sorry, I didn't see that message =) When you'll have time, just could you check that list item with 'Right Win' key ?) Thank you very much . Sorry for disturbing.

I can check, but my keyboard lacks that key so I don't know if the option is there. Let me see.

not worth it for the UEFI boot menu only. That's a win-win for people that have dual-boot configured (mostly Windows as a 2nd boot option)

i mean i dont need a boot menu at all

plus GRUB2 is too darn easy to setup, pretty good integration with LUKS as well

i just want it to be simple if i have one

never thought it as simple by the looks of it on archwiki

i just want it to be simple if i have one

Simplest way to boot is to have coreboot load the initrd/kernel straight from disk

never thought it as simple by the looks of it on archwiki

arch doesnt add seperate boot entries for different kernels

systemd boot seems to be just the uefi bootloader from the looks of it

isnt that much simpler than grub?

arch doesnt add seperate boot entries for different kernels

but ArchLinux is a rolling release distribution.

but ArchLinux is a rolling release distribution.

how is systemd-boot more complicated than grub is more of my point

isnt that much simpler than grub?

Its a lot more complicated and volatile, and does alot with automagic things.

Native EFIStub is better.

Its a lot more complicated and volatile, and does alot with automagic things.

how is it more complicated though

technically

Native EFIStub is better.

i agree

systemd-boot reads simple and entirely generic boot loader configuration files; one file per boot loader entry to select from. All files need to reside on the ESP.

how is it more complicated though

If something goes wrong you're in a world of catastrophe.

this sounds super simple

how is it more complicated though

you have to add your own entry in the boot file

While with grub i can manually type out the bootscript (by now, thanks to needing to set it up by hand for coreboot)

/boot/loader/entries/arch.conf

While with grub i can manually type out the bootscript (by now, thanks to needing to set it up by hand for coreboot)

systemd-boot includes an efi shell as well iirc

requires more manual configuration. And whatever's manual is always much more prone to error

/boot/loader/entries/arch.conf

dont compare with arch

dont compare with arch

w/e I think you get my point

it is more complicated on arch specifically

you have to add entries manually

no one does that nowadays

you have to add entries manually

you dont need to add entries manually

you just need to have EFI entries

you just need to have EFI entries

you have systemd-boot?

you have systemd-boot?

ive tried it with arch

thats what ive been doing in the past two hours

bootctl loads from esp automatically

so far it seems much simpler than grub

but grub being more powerful

interesting

i just see no fedora related wiki with it

does it handle LUKS encryption well?

or does it work ok on a lvm? ie. the /boot partition

or does it work ok on a lvm? ie. the /boot partition

i mean it loads kernels the same way as the EFI boot menu

so in theory its just as compatible

and i read somewhere because of this it worked with bitlocker UEFI windows

which means it should with LVM

basically if you were able to load your OS with the F12 boot menu, it should work

I can check, but my keyboard lacks that key so I don't know if the option is there. Let me see.

my keyboard has only left win on one Laptop, but that option is still there, so I think, it doesn't matter.

also it works with secure boot like ReFind but that doesnt intrest me either

or does it work ok on a lvm? ie. the /boot partition

https://npmccallum.gitlab.io/post/our-bootloader-problem/

in theory it's a silver bullet. But I know how many issues I had with these silver bullet solutions

?

https://npmccallum.gitlab.io/post/our-bootloader-problem/

this is from a redhat engineer btw

ok

and how do you debug a failing systemd-boot?

in grub it's just a bash script that you can update by your own will

ERROR: S client not available

and how do you debug a failing systemd-boot?

thats the downside

you only have an efi shell

thats the downside

see... there's no silver bullet

but honestly the only way your efi shell fails is if your efi partition is corrupted

and in that case, grub/shim wouldnt work either

idk, ive never had issues with efi boot menus

i know with some shitty motherboards, efi boot menus dont update with the efi partition and so on because they cache that data and some shit

i agree grub is more compatible

i just dont need all the fluff and wanted to try something simpler

im probably going to have coreboot load my kernel like tobias suggests

In Change layout there is a Right Win option, I think this is that he wants

Guys, is there any way to change the DPI when using nouveau drivers? My laptop has a native res of 1920x1080 and the font is visible but very uncomfortable to look at. On Windows 10, I could just bump up the DPI to 125% and it felt normal but right now, its frustratingly small

I think that that is an option of the DE, not of the driver

for instance, in Cinnamon this option is in Font settings

Guys, is there any way to change the DPI when using nouveau drivers? My laptop has a native res of 1920x1080 and the font is visible but very uncomfortable to look at. On Windows 10, I could just bump up the DPI to 125% and it felt normal but right now, its frustratingly small

You do so in your DE, yes. Either with font size or with scaling settings - dot scaling is only coming soon (works best for 2/3/4x scaling now) but text scaling works super well at that.

I think that that is an option of the DE, not of the driver

Ah, the thing is I don't, sorta, have a DE

i3wm

:P

if you change it in nouveau settings, not only the font, but also the whole display will reduce its resolution, working worse or equal you have a HD monitor instead Full HD

I think that that is an option of the DE, not of the driver

Yeah, that depends desktop.

if you change it in nouveau settings, not only the font, but also the whole display will reduce its resolution, working worse or equal you have a HD monitor instead Full HD

Ah, crap. Don't want that..

https://www.reddit.com/r/i3wm/comments/3zboet/how_to_increase_display_scaling_like_in_unity/

Never mind. I'm just bumping up the display size individual for all apps whenever available

https://www.reddit.com/r/i3wm/comments/3zboet/how_to_increase_display_scaling_like_in_unity/

Oh, thanks

Will check it out

Gnome has an extension to change the size for fonts, so they don't look small without affecting the rest.

Or it used to have at least

Gnome has an extension to change the size for fonts, so they don't look small without affecting the rest.

No extension needed, you only need gnome tweak tool.

Oh, okay.

I remember I clicked something on the top bar.