Mint 20.1 UEFI, Mate and other disasters on a brand new pc.

[GS3]

Please use the "code" tag and not the "c" tags.

[SMG]

CPU AMD RYZEN 3 2200G
Motherborard Gigabyte B450M DS3H V2

B450M DS3H V2 (rev. 1.0) Specifications has listed under the BIOS - "2. Use of licensed AMI UEFI BIOS"
so I expect there are settings for CSM as well as Secure Boot. Both of those are technologies which are used on UEFI. You would also have the option of using your computer in UEFI or [Legacy]BIOS. Some motherboards even have a third option that is a sort of either/or, but I do not recall if Gigabyte does.

I mention that because you will want to know your settings since you are planning on having more than one operating system. Unless you plan on only having one drive attached at a time or changing the boot order each time you change, you will want to understand at least a little bit of UEFI.

The data you posted also confirms the motherboard has UEFI and the LM19 drive is running in Legacy BIOS mode.
Machine:
Device: desktop Mobo: Gigabyte model: B450M DS3H V2 v: x.x serial: N/A
UEFI [Legacy]: American Megatrends v: F1 date: 08/17/2020

That output you posted doesn't seem to be the usual inxi -Fxxxrz because it does not list the scheme: for the drives. The sceme will be something you want to know if you are installing more operating systems. The scheme for Legacy BIOS is MBR while the scheme for UEFI is GPT. Ideally, you want all your drives, which have operating systems installed, to be the same so it is easier to switch back and forth.

_______________________________
LM20 on your equipment:

Although you did not mention graphics on your first post, the default install of MATE uses the marco compositor which results in a staircase effect on your screen. (Or as Reddog1 indicated, it looks like someone vomited the graphics onto the screen.) That is an issue with the amdgpu driver and certain compositors. If marco is your favorite compositor then you would want to stay with LM19. That is not something over which Mint has control.

Your many comments about UEFI, boot order, etc. all relate to the newer technology your motherboard uses and is not LM20 related. You have been given lots of info and references on that topic.

MATE is version 1.24 in LM20 which is several versions newer than the 1.20 you have in LM19. You can see what changed in 1.22 and 1.24 the links under the News section on MATE Desktop Environment webpage.

Mint Menu - I found this post Mint Menu does not show applications which may be what you experienced? I'm not sure so I can provide no further guidance.

Player - I do not know what this is so I can not provide any guidance.

VLC - This app has many options for how to translate the video code into a picture you see on your screen. Not every one works for every file. In addition, if those settings are not in sync with your hardware and VLC is set to use hardware acceleration, then there can be problems. Mint does not control the initial settings of VLC. VLC is not a Mint app.

Browsers - Plenty of people are using browsers other than Firefox, so I know other browsers can be installed.

The fact you were having issues with applications disappearing from the menu, and issues with installing and uninstalling apps, makes me wonder if your initial install of LM20.1 somehow did not happen properly. We do not know and you no longer care, so good luck with your future installs and hopefully some of the information provided in this thread will help you prevent future disappointing experiences.

[SMG]

System Specs are what is needed here in order for SMG to continue to be of help

Does that mean I'm the only one who needs info and the rest of you can help without it?

[marlene]

System Specs are what is needed here in order for SMG to continue to be of help

Does that mean I'm the only one who needs info and the rest of you can help without it?

No it was a reply on what you said that I came here to rant and not to find solution.

Yes I came here to rant and the reasons are on the following post ( in order not to say that I'm quoting just you).

[marlene]

I purchased a new pc that it is not the cutting edge of technology but it has the requirements to run without problems any new operating system.

I've donwload the appropriate iso image for my new machine, through torrent ( no corrupted file) I checked the iso images with check sum ( no corrupted image).

Though I had no clue with what this UEFI thing is I proceeded no matter what to a normal installation. I was able after all to access the new disk.

The installation is manual with three ext4 partitions ( one for the system one for the swap and one for the home) and a fourth for the EFI according to the installer's requirements and I end up with a cr@p system that does its own things.

The UEFI issue wouldn't be an issue in the first place if the new installation worked decently as if it did so I wouldn't even detect that it had messed up with the boot order priority.

My intention after all was to install the new release on the new disk and use the files that I had on the other that has after all more space and it is a disk for survaillance cameras in other words a disk for writing and deleting till the end of its days.

Long story sort, nothing worked and I come here to report the problem, in the appropriate forum ( no matter if you moved to the chat forum like I came here to chat about pop music - sorry for laughing but I found all these very funny and I'll explain the reasons later on) and you reply to me the following:

that I"m delusional for having the expecation to have a release that should work out of the box and that I'm a fool to rant because I'm supposedly obliged to open one hundred threads in order to resolve the problems that this release has, like I don't have any other work to do, or like my liife is depended on LM Ulyssa 20.1 that doesn't work because .....it doesn't and it can't even run the most basic of GUI.


And NO. I don't use macro as my default compositor and I checked this out too when I started having problems with MATE.

But even if I used it this doesn't explain the reason why the whole system didn't want to install any other application, something that it indicates to me problem with the dependencies.


BUT ( pay attention because this is a very important but).
Why should I have to spend time and efford to figure out what caused the one or the other mulfunction?

Why should I have to go back in 2005 when I had to figure out why the one or the other thing didn't work and resolve each and every problem separately and manually?

Haven't we ( the linux community ) progressed after all these years, going from the DIY and RTFM to entrepreneurs investing and making companies to check and fix the whatever problems in advance?? Don't we?

And here we come to the reason why I'm laughing all that long.

Because I came here to REPORT just REPORT that this thing is a cr@p and I'm getting the same old replies. Give us the specs ( here are the specs and they are just fine) and open a separate new thread for each and every problem - problems that are multiple and unrelated the one with the other.

In other words you adviced me to fix the problematic OS just for the sake of doing so, instead of forward the report to those who have the rensposibility to fix it.

As for my foolishness. Yes I'm fool. Because I'm round and about these linux communities from 2005 and onwards and I have already supported and still support with donations independent and not so independent developers, translating User Guides and promoting Linux Mint to end up not even having the right to RANT.

I'll rant as much as I like. It is not personal by any means. But it is the only thing suitable in this case.

[GS3]

Why should I have to spend time and efford to figure out what caused the one or the other mulfunction?

Because this is Linux and that is what Linux is for: to cause pain and suffering to those of us who are masochists and the more pain and suffering we endure the happier and prouder we are. That is the entire purpose of Linux. The thrill that it might work or it probably will require some sweat and tears. And the feeling of satisfaction if we can get something to work and the frustration if we fail.

If you are looking for something that just works out of the box with no challenges then Apple might be for you. It is what my mother in law uses to chat and see her grand-kids. Press the button and the grand-kid appears on the screen like magic!

If you just want to see your grand-kids then Apple is great.

[marlene]

Why should I have to spend time and efford to figure out what caused the one or the other mulfunction?

Because this is Linux and that is what Linux is for: to cause pain and suffering to those of us who are masochists and the more pain and suffering we endure the happier and prouder we are. That is the entire purpose of Linux. The thrill that it might work or it probably will require some sweat and tears. And the feeling of satisfaction if we can get something to work and the frustration if we fail.

If you are looking for something that just works out of the box with no challenges then Apple might be for you. It is what my mother in law uses to chat and see her grand-kids. Press the button and the grand-kid appears on the screen like magic!

If you just want to see your grand-kids then Apple is great.

You have been misinformed and you transfer this kind of mininformation to others I'm afraid....

Those who want to suffer are those who still use Windows.

Those who DIDN'T want to suffer anymore were those who developed linux. Because they didn't want to have difficult installations that last for aeons, they didn't want to have their system a mush up of system files, user files, libraries and applications all mixed together, they didn't want to run an antivirus, an antimalware, an antibiotic and all the anti something of this world simultaneously in order to have some decent level of security and they were those who didn't want to trouble themselves to straighten up fragmented disks , looking up and down for drivers, having to install the universe from cds and finally and most importantlywere those who wanted to OWN their system and do whatever they like with it..


If your suggestion about Apple is meant literally then is none of my concern.

I don't have grand-kids because I don't have kids yet. When and if I decide to have some though, don't worry...I'll hire you in order to design a longterm communication plan with those kids of mine and their own kids. It will be a pitty after all to go in vain your considerable amount of good will to advise and help others.

It is very kind of you. Thank you.

[GS3]

You have been misinformed and you transfer this kind of mininformation to others I'm afraid....

I stand corrected but I am a bit tired so I think I'll sit down.

Those who want to suffer are those who still use Windows.

Those who DIDN'T want to suffer anymore were those who developed linux. Because they didn't want to have difficult installations that last for aeons, they didn't want to have their system a mush up of system files, user files, libraries and applications all mixed together, they didn't want to run an antivirus, an antimalware, an antibiotic and all the anti something of this world simultaneously in order to have some decent level of security and they were those who didn't want to trouble themselves to straighten up fragmented disks , looking up and down for drivers, having to install the universe from cds and finally and most importantlywere those who wanted to OWN their system and do whatever they like with it..

I am so glad to see you have come around from your OP and you are now a great defender of the Linux faith.

Or is it that you are just looking for any argument?
Is it going to be the five minute argument or the full half hour?

[marlene]

I am so glad to see you have come around from your OP and you are now a great defender of the Linux faith.

Linux is not a faith and it is not a dogma.

It is just a type of operating system. Nothing more.

[GS3]

I am learning so much from you here.

[marlene]

I'm posting here the solution to the problem for those who might need it, ( including GS3 who kindly showed me his own thread but I doubt if s/he managed to figure out what to do).

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UEFI

So here is how the above apply on my case.

I didn't need to make the EFI partition as my old SATA dick had already an installation that was done on an old pc that run on BIOS. The new computer was setup in legacy mode in order to detect and boot properly the old disk and so when I wrongly added the EFI partition and attempted to use the UEFI mode in the new installation I actually created the ultimate confilct on my double boot Linux machine.

Those who mostly are in need to setup their new Linux installation with UEFI support and add by default the EFI partition are those who already run Windows in their machine and want to make a second linux installation on a double boot system or those who have already use UEFI on their first linux installation and as such they have to use the same firmware mode on their second one.

Those who already have an older Linux installation that was setup in BIOS/legacy mode should pay attention to install their new Linux operating system in the same firmware type mode that their old installation is set already up, as Linux can support both types of BIOS/UEFI either way but not both simultaneously.

Otherwise this will create a conflict and the ultimate mess. In my case and as my pc's firmware can be setup in all different firmware modes and by the time that I have no intention to reinstall any OS on my old disc but use it with the OS that I want to isntall on the new SSD disk, I'll have to install the second Linux installation at the same mode with the first one, in other words IGNORE THE CREATION OF THE EFI PARTITION during the installation and proceed with a legacy, old school, regular installation in order to make it work in the same firmware mode with the already excisting one.


BUT <---------very important but.
The above don't and can't explain why LM20.1 had a misbehaving MATE, and couldn't install third party applications. The misbehaving GUI and the inability of the system to install the third party browser makes me suspect that this had something to do with the dependencies.

And that's about all. It was actually that simple.

[marlene]

I am learning so much from you here.

I'm glad that I inspire you.

[marlene]

And some more info about the options.
If you already have a system with an installation of Windows 8 or older then you don't need to install your Linux OS in UEFI mode.
If you already have Windows 9 or later you have to because the later versions of Windows can't work without the UEFI support.

If you have already a Linux installation that runs in legacy mode but you want to switch it in UEFI it can be done with the way the link I posted previously describes. But then you should install the second Linux OS on the same mode.

The trick is not to mix them up, particularly if your machine's firmware supports both options. Dual boot linux installation will work with both. The only difference is that UEFI supports newer Windows versions. ( from 9 onwards).

As for the "HOW TOs" these are published on separate articles all around the web.

The moral of the case now:

I got confused and messed up for an operating system that I don't use at all..... I have to bother with Microsoft cr@p though I don't use Windows. Isn't it surreal. Eh?

[SMG]

If you already have a system with an installation of Windows 8 or older then you don't need to install your Linux OS in UEFI mode.

Computers which came with Window 8 64-bit pre-installed have UEFI, so one can not necessarily base their decision on the Windows version. Most Windows 7 computer had BIOSes, but some had UEFIs. One needs to check the firmware to know for sure.

By the way, there was no Windows 9. Windows went from 8 to 10. And now there are different versions of 10 depending upon what one's hardware can run.

[marlene]

If you already have a system with an installation of Windows 8 or older then you don't need to install your Linux OS in UEFI mode.

Computers which came with Window 8 64-bit pre-installed have UEFI, so one can not necessarily base their decision on the Windows version. Most Windows 7 computer had BIOSes, but some had UEFIs. One needs to check the firmware to know for sure.

By the way, there was no Windows 9. Windows went from 8 to 10. And now there are different versions of 10 depending upon what one's hardware can run.

The first and the last time I used Windows were in the version XP. I switched to linux in less than a month of use and I don't know what happened to them afterwards.

Regardless of the Windows version I hope you got the main idea.
If your computer has a Windows installation then this installation is probably with UEFI and so the same firmware should be used for any other installation you will add.

If the pc comes without OS ( and no Windows) then you don't have to install with UEFI.

I found a very nice rolling release to install on my SSD disk that I had used it in the past and it is still available.

This one.
https://archlinux.org/

[SMG]

Regardless of the Windows version I hope you got the main idea.

Most of us here understood the "main idea" at the beginning of the thread. We help people all the time who experience issues similar to yours.

[marlene]

Yes but you didn't inform me about the simplest and most basic thing.

That I shouldn't have used the UEFI set up for a double boot Linux installation with an already existing installation running on legacy firmware mode on one of its discs.
I told you that I had an SATA disc running LM19 that i transferred from a 20 year old pc.

So the simplest, direct and more useful reply should have been:

"If you have an old disk with an already existing installation in legacy mode then you should install the second operating system on your new disk in legacy mode too."

Not advice me to look up and down what were the settings of the UEFI/EFI/ firmware etc in an attempt to make it work either way.

Whatever was the case with the firmware, the installation of LM20.1 had been already done. The double firmware settings affected only my ability to boot back on the old disk though grub was appropriately set up.

The real problem was that the new installation of the LM20.1 didn't work as it should, though the machine has the requirements to run it and the installation were done as it should have been done as otherwise I wouldn't be able to boot at all in the the LM20.1.
,
Having two installations running in two different firmware modes was indeed the minor problem that I wouldn't even been able to detect it, if I didn't have the installation that ended up to be the only option to boot in, misbehaving with all possible ways.

The firmware mode has nothing to do with what the operating system does when it is loaded and working.The firmware had detected the hardware, had detected the drivers etc otherwise I wouldn't be able to boot.

A misbehaving MATE that is one of the most basic graphic environments, and applications that can't be installed or uninstalled tell me that something is really wrong with the release and not with firmware mode that this installation was set up.

Now...If I wasn't really unwilling to bother with that thing and if had the slightest mood to start experimenting with my new pc and SSD disk I might had installed it for a a second time in legacy mode just for the sake of finding out what is going wrong with it.

But I don't have the mood ... I really don't have it after six whole months of covid lockdown. I have to have a working pc, I have to finish my new artworks because i have to join a hell of exhibitions, I have to update my website because my profession is actually that of a watercolour artist and not a linux OS's tester or analyser, linux evangelist, developer, programmer or PC specialist.

I'm just the regular person who needs a desktop pc with a stable OS to do the basic things that is supposed to do for as long as it can do them. It is that simple.

[SMG]

Yes but you didn't inform me about the simplest and most basic thing.

That I shouldn't have used the UEFI set up for a double boot Linux installation with an already existing installation running on legacy firmware mode on one of its discs.
I told you that I had an SATA disc running LM19 that i transferred from a 20 year old pc.

Where did you tell us you were transferring LM19 from a pc that came out in 2001? I re-read your posts and you do not mention the age of the prior pc. You just said the hard disk was from an older pc. There are people posting on this forum that think a 5-year old computer is an "older" pc. Computers which came out 5 years ago all have UEFI. We could only guess based on your complaints about UEFI that your prior computer was legacy boot.

Those of us posting only had the information you put in your posts. We do not have all the information in your head about the situation. You telling us what we "should have" told you makes the incorrect assumption we knew more about the situation than what you actually posted.