You may not agree with me but don't call it nonsense.
From the article about the fallback path: "This mechanism is not designed for booting permanently-installed OSes."
Plus there is only one fallback path so we're back to the situation of multiple OSes fighting over the fallback path.
And from the article a disadvantage of the BIOS: "It’s inconvenient to deal with – you need special utilities to write the MBR, and just about the only way to find out what’s in one is to dd the contents out and examine them."
But now with UEFI we need a special utility to manipulate the EFI NVRAM variables. The motherboard setup only lists the names of the entries. No editing and no listing of the details.
So my criticism is valid. The information stored in the UEFI bootmanager NVRAM should have been in a file(s) in the system partition.
From the article about the fallback path: "This mechanism is not designed for booting permanently-installed OSes."
Plus there is only one fallback path so we're back to the situation of multiple OSes fighting over the fallback path.
And from the article a disadvantage of the BIOS: "It’s inconvenient to deal with – you need special utilities to write the MBR, and just about the only way to find out what’s in one is to dd the contents out and examine them."
But now with UEFI we need a special utility to manipulate the EFI NVRAM variables. The motherboard setup only lists the names of the entries. No editing and no listing of the details.
So my criticism is valid. The information stored in the UEFI bootmanager NVRAM should have been in a file(s) in the system partition.