Just noticed: Is there specific reason why -current still has ELILO 3.14?

ELILO got an update with a "MAJOR" bugfix to version 3.16 this year:

I tried today to install Slackware64 14.1 as second OS, on UEFI-powered mobo, and I'm unable to attach "Slackware" entry to Windows' 8.1 menu properly.
- both Windows 8.1 and Slckware 14.1 boot properly, when I select their respective positions in UEFI (just switching on every boot to setup is really cumbersome)
- I tried to attach Slackware's boot-menu entry using EasyBCD 2.2 - yes, it appeared, and now I have a boot menu, allowing selection

The problem is, that everytime when I select "Slackware", it complains:

"Windows failed to start. [..] File: \EFI\SLACKWARE\ELILO.EFI

Status: 0xc000007b

Info: The application or operating system couldn't be loaded becasue a required file is missing or contains errors."

Well of course I've got this file along with kernel copy - which has been done on automatic by Slackware's installator. But it seems, somehow it can't find this (or it can't run this?).

What actually should I do to fix this problem?

It is probably better to post your question as a separate thread. Otherwise it will be lost in the large number of posts regarding UEFI support in Slackware.

You tried to add "ELILO.EFI" to the Windows boot menu. The error message says that the Windows boot loader cannot load "ELILO.EFI". That is correct, because the Windows boot loader can only load Windows files and it cannot load normal UEFI programs or boot loaders. Therefore you cannot add ELILO to the Windows boot menu.

Windows cannot chain boot to any other UEFI boot loader or operating system. You have to modify the computer's UEFI firmware boot menu to load ELILO. Either add ELILO to the computer's firmware boot menu or replace the firmware boot menu entry for Windows with ELILO. Then add an entry to the ELILO menu to chain to the Windows boot loader, "bootmgfw.efi". ELILO can chain load the Windows boot loader, "bootmgfw.efi".

Some people have also found that Windows will put its boot loader back as the default firmware boot entry if that is changed. To avoid that problem, make a backup copy of the "/efi/microsoft/boot/bootmgfw.efi" file to another location and then replace the "bootmgfw.efi" file with the "elilo.efi" file. You have to name the ELILO file "bootmgfw.efi". Then add the backup copy of "bootmgfw.efi" to the ELILO boot menu for booting Windows.

EasyBCD is not able to "fix" the limitation of the Windows UEFI boot loader. The Windows boot loader can only load Windows EFI files and not normal UEFI files. Even though Windows uses the file extension ".EFI" for some files such as "WINLOAD.EFI", those files are not normal UEFI files. The Windows boot loader cannot chain to or boot normal UEFI files that have the ".EFI" extension. So, the Windows UEFI boot loader is only useful for booting Windows and nothing else. It is misleading of Microsoft to use the ".EFI" file extension for anything except "bootmgfw.efi". That is the only Microsoft file that is really a UEFI executable file.

You also cannot add files such as "WINLOAD.EFI" to the ELILO boot menu even though they end in the ".EFI" file extension. Those files are not normal UEFI programs or boot loaders, and they can only be loaded by the Windows EFI boot loader. You can add the Windows "bootmgfw.efi" file to the ELILO boot menu because that is a normal UEFI boot loader program.

The old BIOS boot loader for Windows works differently. It can chain boot to any boot sector that has been copied into a 512-byte file. In the past, people have added other operating systems to the Windows boot menu. With UEFI that is no longer possible because Microsoft has not implemented it. EasyBCD depends on the BIOS boot loader for Windows in order to chain boot other operating systems. Windows uses a special boot menu entry "APPLICATION BOOTSECTOR" to load those boot sector files. The Windows UEFI boot loader does not support "APPLICATION BOOTSECTOR" menu entries.

What is surprising to me is that there has not been more criticism of Microsoft for hijacking the ".EFI" file extension to create a non-standard Microsoft executable image format. Also, very few people have pointed out that the Windows boot loader cannot load normal UEFI programs or boot loaders. That is not required by the UEFI standard, but it is certainly a reasonable expectation for a well behaved and flexible boot loader. Not only that, it's easy because most of the software is already a part of UEFI.

1 members found this post helpful.

Thanks for your prompt reply.

How this can be done? Could I have an example? ELILO's docs contain several examples of multiboot "many Linuxes to choose from", as if it was more common case than "Linux + Windows on same disk". Could you post an example to follow?

UEFI executables (.EFI) files are just 64 bit Windows .EXE files (PE/COFF), a format under control of Microsoft. Your Slackware Linux kernel is just a ELF executable embedded in an PE (.EXE/.EFI) file due to the EFI stub configuration option. UEFI even uses the Windows x86-64 calling convention. From Microsoft's POV using a customized PE named .EFI for stage 2 of their own boot process makes perfect sense technically, because they own it completely.

Microsoft ist not "hijacking" .EFI, they invented it. They own this so-called "standard". In fact almost everything PC-firmware-related was defined by IBM, Microsoft or Intel at some point. That's how you boot your PC now: You run a specially crafted .EXE files on a 64 bit version of MS-DOS*) stored inside the mainboard ROM firmware. So ELILO is more similar to LOADLIN than to LILO.

*) You can think of UEFI as 64 bit MS-DOS. It operates on FAT, allows primitive device drivers, direct hardware access and uses single tasking with full-screen access. Unlike the 16 bit original for the 8088 it provides a pixel-oriented framebuffer.

Really a pity, somehow OpenFirmware didn't make it (except older Sun machinery).

Um, probably has to do with the simple fact that there isn't a "singular powerful" backer to push things forward... instead, it gets a lot of backers with differing opinions on how things should proceed.

Doesn't take much to form a schism that grinds things to a halt.

If I'm not mistaken, Intel was responsible for the EFI standard that morphed into UEFI. So, really Intel invented UEFI. UEFI is not a 64-bit MSDOS. MSDOS uses the BIOS for I/O and thus can boot anything supported by BIOS extension ROMS. The low-level drivers for MSDOS are in the BIOS. UEFI cannot use BIOS extension ROMS found in older hardware. UEFI does not provide a mechanism for boot sector loading, although most UEFI firmware supports that non-standard feature. UEFI is a lot closer to Windows Pre-installation Environment (setup) than it is to MSDOS.

The Microsoft EFI PE format has a different section type than normal EFI PE images. I'm not complaining about Microsoft doing that, only the fact that they used the ".EFI" file extension when it was intended for the normal EFI PE format. I suppose one can argue about who used the ".EFI" file extension first. However, the UEFI standard claims the ".EFI" file extension for boot loaders and executable files compatible with UEFI.

Why did Microsoft choose not to support adding standard EFI programs to the Windows boot menu? That would be helpful for things like the EFI command shell, diagnostics or other boot loaders. It seems that Microsoft is trying to prevent users from easily booting other operating systems. In addition, the Microsoft boot loader resets the firmware boot options to boot the Windows boot loader, ignoring the user's preferred boot order set in the firmware. People should not be forced to rename their boot loader to "/efi/microsoft/boot/bootmgfw.efi" in order to use an alternative boot loader.

Actually ELILO is more similar to rEFInd Boot Manager without a GUI. The actual loading is not done by ELILO at all, it just provides a menu. All of the loading functions for UEFI executable files are a standard part of the UEFI firmware. That is why it is so ridiculous of Microsoft to not support loading standard UEFI executable files. They literally just have to call a UEFI function with the correct file name and the UEFI firmware does the rest.

Part of the problem is the graphical Windows boot menu. Microsoft boots a large portion of the Windows operating system in order to provide that graphical menu. That means switching back to a stand-alone UEFI system is difficult after the graphical boot menu has been displayed. The graphical boot menu doesn't really boot anything. It just continues running Windows after Windows has mostly been loaded. If you choose to boot anything besides Windows from the Windows graphical menu, the system has to be completely restarted to the text-based boot loader. All the graphical menu does is set the "next" menu entry to be booted and then restart the entire computer. And, of course if you install some other boot loader, the Windows graphical boot menu does not work as expected. It boots to some other boot loader instead of booting the graphical menu entry you chose. Or, if you're really unlucky it does boot what you chose, but it replaces your boot loader with the Windows boot loader first. Most people don't realize that all the smoke and mirrors is going on until the Windows boot menu misbehaves.

Microsoft could have implemented the graphical boot using UEFI graphics drivers just like rEFInd. They chose to use as little of UEFI as possible and make their Windows UEFI system as incompatible and inflexible as possible. It was probably a great business decision but I think it did a disservice to Windows users.

1 members found this post helpful.

I could be wrong but I'm not sure ELILO can chainload other OS (non-Linux) kernels or Windows bootmgfw.efi, it complains that bootmgfw.efi is not a bzImage kernel image for example. Grub2 however can, the following works on my laptop:

So having 2 different boot managers installed already - I'll need 3rd one, for my 2 OS-es?

Nope... You'll use Grub2 as the loader for Linux instead of elilo (necessitating going into the EFI partition to remove elilo.efi). That, will allow you to chainload to windows.

~~~~~

Personally, I'm having difficulty in figuring out just why anyone wants to chainload with UEFI? I understood the necessity before UEFI... but the whole point of UEFI is to have some OS "independence" with being able to choose a boot loader (which in turn, allows one to choose an OS to boot).

How about try... rEFInd? http://www.rodsbooks.com/refind/

That seems to me to be a decent choice... I mean, you can leave your current loader alone and have a boot choice. Then install something else in the future without too much fuss.

For myself... I'm pretty content with leaving either Slackware or Windows 8.1 as a default direct boot. Then switch as needed via BIOS boot menu, or changing the default. I mean, I don't plan on switching back and forth many times in one day. Once I get into a groove of working on something, probably stick to on OS for a few weeks...

But that being said... I might give rEFInd a try.

So finally, before I spend another afternoon fighting with this: is ELILO able to chainload Windows - or not?

In your opinion entering each time UEFI's setup to switch to other system is less cumbersome, than just selecting it from some kind of boot menu? Well, I don't think so.

Fourth boot-manager? It seems, having 2 OS-es I'll soon have 4 boot managers - while I need just one, allowing me selection of OS. If ELILO doesn't allow this, why it's installed by default in Slackware?

you're misunderstanding quite a bit there.

firstly, having a boot menu means that there's a few second delay while it waits for you to choose an OS, or default select and move on. going into the BIOS menu isn't for everytime I boot up... and it's because I don't intend to swap OSes often. I did say, I would most likely stick to one for a while. so directly booting into an OS is faster than waiting for a menu. what's the difference between tapping up and down in a boot menu verses hitting F7 to open my bios boot menu, then tapping up and down to select... the difference being all of one key. I would only dig into the bios itself the change the default if I know i'm gonna be booting into whatever is not the current default OFTEN.

secondly elilo is NOT chainloadable according to a number of sources.. previous poster for one. the person that maintains the site I just linked to for another... wiki is a third, etc.

and finally, if you use rEFInd, you won't have 4 boot managers... unless you have four separate OS installations.

rEFInd is a boot manager that allows you to choose among the installed boot loaders.

windows.efi is a boot loader.
elilo is a boot loader that can "act" as a manager
grub2 is a boot loader that can "act" as a manager too
efi stub loader... is self explanatory, i would hope.

with efi stub loader being intergrated into linux kernal 3.3 and after... we won't need elilo or grub2 to load linux. but again... if you use grub2, you WON'T be using elilo. one or the other *per linux installation*

when you boot up, it goes to rEFInd.. that presents you with boot options... then you boot.

as for elilo being installed by default... you could skip over it as an option... just like you could skip over lilo. not everyone does multi-boot. because multi-boot is NOT the common denominator, they chose what works for them. like I said earlier... with the usage of UEFI, chainloading isn't necessary anymore (though people CAN use it if they really want).

p.s. considering I didn't have to do ANYTHING to have multiple boot options from an UEFI menu... compared to the venerable headache you must be feeling now, just trying to figure out how to get a boot menu up... I'd say, yeah... it is less cumbersome. do you plan on swapping EVERYTIME you boot?

to simplify things... for you... you have two options.

#1 replace elilo (bye-bye) with grub2 (hello)... you have one boot loader (grub2), chainload into another boot loader(windows).

#2 install rEFInd... then at boot, choose between linux and windows. that's one boot manager and two boot loaders. elilo for booting into linux, or whatever windows' efi is for booting into windows.

well, you do have a third... but you've already voiced your dislike for it... use the UEFI boot menu to pick and leave your installation alone without installing or uninstalling anything else.

You just answered, what the difference is: less "tapping" and shorter waiting time, while selecting the desired OS. Having functional boot-manager I just need to hit "Enter" (or nothing at all, just wait 3 seconds) - or "Down", then "Enter" (to boot Windows).

Indeed: maybe not everyone does multi-boot; but since multi-boot allows you either to boot single OS, or multiple installed OS-es, then - in fact - IT IS "common denominator", since it'll work for everyone, right?

Besides: take a look at all the examples of "multiple boot different Linuxes installed on single machine" in ELILO's docs. Does it make more sense, than single example for "Linux / non-Linux OS selection at boot time"? Not knowing the statistics, I bet, that there are far, far more people dual-booting Linux-Windows, than die-hards having 3 Linux distros installed on the same machine.

Well, maybe indeed that rEFINd is the answer. Really disappointed with ELILO. Yes, also with that Windows' boot-manager - it's really irritating, that they do all they can, to prevent use of anything else but Windows.

Maybe I'm missing something (I have this mobo only 2nd day). Yes, I've got in setup the selections, which I can use - well the problem is, that there doesn't show up any boot-menu when starting the machine. I have to enter the setup with "Delete", then dig into proper menu, switch the boot option, "Save and Exit"... really cumbersome.

No, I don't "dislike" it - it just doesn't show up. And I can't see a way to bring it onto the screen. How did you do it in your UEFI?

yes... you missing one little detail. my laptop isn't limited to one way.

for my laptop the option is... F2 OR F7 during POST.

F2 - enter BIOS, where I can change the default boot option for future boots... plus selecting the OS for booting now.

F7 - brings up the boot menu, where I can pick which OS to boot into NOW.

lets say my default is windows...

everytime I boot, without hitting either F2 or F7, it automatically goes to windows.

if I want to go to linux this one time, I hit F7 during POST, and it'll display windows and linux as the options. then i pick linux.

if I hit F2, eventually, I get to a screen with a bunch of boot related options....

top half is "boot ORDER:" windows then linux (can be changed to linux THEN windows)
bottom half is "boot into:" windows OR linux... which immediately exits BIOS and boots into my choice there

edit: nope, not F10... F8 if it's the same BIOS as my desktop (I don't dual boot in my desktop, so I don't use it).

maybe F10 was my older laptop... or TAB?