What the fuck is this

You done goofed.

learn how to install a distro properly

>>52470622
/boot/efi isn't an EFI partition

>>52470622

>shitnux

>>52470622
Are you installing arch or gentoo ?

Arch

>>52470622
MEME
E
M
E

Are you trying to use MBR or EFI?
Have you mounted /boot?
Archwiki contains all the answers you need.

>>52470622
just install gentoo

>>52470752
Im trying to use EFI and yes, I've mounted the /dev/sdb3 to /boot/efi

>>52470797
Have you formatted the partition as FAT? Have you marked the partition as boot/EFI System Partition?

Also, while in theory you in can make any partition your ESP, some (bad) software will expect the ESP to always be the first partition.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#EFI_System_Partition

>>52470864
I formatted it as ext4

>>52470972
gotta be FAT
reformat as FAT, set boot flag, try again.

>>52470999
So I can just reinstall arch on fat?

>>52471016
No, you should be making a separate boot partition (at about 100MB), which should be formated in FAT.

>>52471016
>With the exceptions noted below, it is recommended to use the ext4 file system:
>If a new UEFI system partition has been created on a UEFI/GPT system, it must be formatted with a fat32 file system:

Why is it BIOS can have an ext4 boot partition but not EFI. Bit weird.

>>52471051
Because EFI is shit and should always be avoided.

>>52471065
I do senpai, just formatted my PC last night for dual booting Arch, used MBR.

>ARCH
TIMESINK
I
M
E
S
I
N
K

>>52471090
>LIFE
TIMESINK
I
M
E
S
I
N
K

So what's the best way of me installing arch on one partition for dual boot?

>>52471152
By you installing it on one partition for dual boot.

>>52471016
Example setup:

/dev/sda
/dev/sda1    100MB    FAT32    /boot EFI System Partition w/boot flag
/dev/sda2    50GB      EXT4     /
/dev/sda3    188GB    EXT4     /home
/dev/sda4    2GB      SWAP

Adapt to your particular drive size, drive setup, multi-boot etc… setup.

>>52471152
>make two partitions
>install arch on one of them
How else do you plan on dual booting?

>>52471152
Install windows first, shrink the volume then make your arch partitions but leave the boot mode on the windows boot partition. Still create the linux boot partition, just don't mark it. Then install grub to the boot partition - see wiki for all this btw - and add it to the windows boot manager.

>>52471166
And as what filesystem should I format it?

>>52471196
ext4 for your arch, fat32 for your boot partition, ntfs for your gaymen OS.

>>52471227
What size should I set the boot partition at?

>>52471238
100 megablyats

>>52471227
>fat32 for your boot partition
Not if he's using legacy bios, then you use ext4.

>>52471266
Nah I use UEFI

Might as well ask here.

What are the advantages of UEFI over MBR and should I, a normal user, care?

>>52471051
Because it has to understand the FS on the efi partition to find files, but doesn't have to on any other partition.

>>52470622
It looks like you're trying to run linux.

I suggest getting treatment for your autism and leaving your mother's basement.

>>52471324
Secureboot, having an OS menu in the bios, maybe a slightly faster boot.
You shouldn't.

>>52471360
Gotcha.

Thanks.

>>52471188

Why separate home and /? Also, why so much space on / (50 GB). Also, 100 MB is too little for boot.

>>52471563
OP here. So I got 240GB of free, unallocated space. What would be the best option to partition it for multiboot?

>>52471563
1) Because then you can reinstall os on /, grab all packages and keep all dotfiles and shit in place on /home
2) Because it has /usr which generally takes installed software
3) No, 100MB may be just fine with proper GRUB configuration, singleboot and enough memory

Why is everything you say false?

>>52472289
You can actually get away with a 50MB partition for boot. At least for legacy.

>>52471051
Because bios is dumb and blindly executes binary code at a given location without understanding what it's doing.

EFI on the other hand is a little smarter and more aware of things, and thus needs to actually be able to see your boot files.

Fat is a good choice for a small volume that holds only few files and doesn't need any special features besides simply holding files.

>>52472660
>Because bios is dumb
>but can do what efi can't
oh...ok.

>>52472670
Bios is dumb because it's configured with a fixed address that it just executes blindly. Literally anything can do that, and it's a pretty fragile, blind, abusable system.

Efi actually loads up a file hierarchy, searches for bootable files and renders them in a list so you can pick a system to boot.

If you don't understand the difference and still think
>>Because bios is dumb
>>but can do what efi can't
is a legit argument, you should kill yourself because you're retarded.

Then again, what the fuck else am I expecting from neetchan?

the desk of someone who is too dumb to properly use cable ties

>>52472874
>Efi actually loads up a file hierarchy, searches for bootable files and renders them in a list so you can pick a system to boot.
And it can't do this with ext4 because?

File: IMG_20160117_173436.jpg (2MB, 3120x3120px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3120x3120px

So this is the situation now guys. What do

>>52473010
Because it doesn't have a built-in module to be able to mount and read ext4. The industry decided it was not worth it, that a fat boot partition would be enough. Get over it. Do you expect them to write a module for every filesystem out there, in case ext4 isn't your thing but rather btrfs, zfs, reiser, etc etc?

When it comes to compatibility, no compatibility (i.e. only fat) is better than half-assed compatibility (some systems besides fat but not all that exist, which would be impossible to do).

>>52473076
Just curious senpai. Of course there's no real downside to fat on suck a tiny partition.

>>52473071
What's the name of that tool, I forget but wanted it the other day.

>>52473111
Cfdisk

>>52473131
That's it, thanks senpai.

File: tumblr_inline_nt0vfexkpK1spsojg_540.jpg (67KB, 540x534px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 540x534px

>he fell for linux meme

>>52470797
>I've mounted the /dev/sdb3 to /boot/efi
Retard, go back to windows and counting to potatos

>>52473328
It is meant to be mounted on just /boot right.

Delete your BIOS firmware

I have no EFI partition... Fml :/

>>52470622
Not using windows 95 aesthetic edition
fag

FAT is strong for small partitions and good performance; EFI spec denotes that the firmware has to read FAT, as if embedded, and find the nearest bootloader image or kernel image and put it into memory. It must be mounted at /boot/efi, and flagged to boot and as EFI system partition (esp). Also I wouldn't use GRUB because of how big it is. rEFInd is a superior solution (supports boot drives with NTFS, XFS...) and it is a lot more robust. OP, being unable to even read an install handbook is honestly retarded, and proof that most arch users are probably mouth breathing primates.

fucking casuals in here

thats a monitor OP, you dumb fuck.