dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2305
share rss forum feed

TuxRaiderPen

join:2009-09-19
reply to markofmayhem

Re: FSF Publishes Important Whitepaper on Secure Boot

said by markofmayhem:
Secure Boot isn't unbreakable, it has been hacked already. The major difference is it hasn't been broken remotely or through a worm/trojan;
So whats the point of having it other than competition lockout? None!

said by markofmayhem:
Linux deserves a PLATFORM key, intradistro politics is eating us. Where is the FSF or LF? Why are they not stepping up with a PK and KeK system for us all to use?
And who is going to run this?

FSF, LF? You will have factions who will not agree to either running this.

Third party? Who? ?

said by markofmayhem:
Microsoft was convinced, through market preasure, to join the OSS Virtual Machine eco system. Through the same preasure, they can be preasured to join a global OPEN PK/KeK system (lock them out of the server space and see them agree to a board hosted solution).
What is going to "pressure" OEM/ODM's to do such a lockout? Yeah Dell is going to not sell equipment that will not run "server 'OS'" from ms. Yeah right... The exact tactic will be you want to sell computers with this "OS" then you will sell hardware able to run "server 'OS'."

said by markofmayhem:
Secure Boot can be brought to its intended goal
I don't think that means what you think it does! The intended goal of "Secure" Boot is LOCKOUT Linux! Period. Any one, ANY ONE, ANY ONE! who believes otherwise is just fooling them selves...Yes, when the idea for it came about... it probably was for what its stated name is, but is been corrupted along the birth canal to its current mess. Need further proof? Look no further than crapple who has used it to do EXACTLY this LOCKDOWN OS X to its hardware, at least try to. Its NOT about security, its about LOCK OUT OF COMPETITION. If crapple thinks they have the !@(*$!(!*) be all end all bees knees OS, then COMPETE with it!

And....

If its insecure already.... whats the point, security wise? OK.... so its not remotely attackable, yet... but for 99.9999% of the situations that problem is for ONE particular line "OS" which is so infectable it could probably catch a cold from a human!

The BIOS needs replaced... the sky is falling... BS!

UEFI offers:

Better GUI for the BIOS.. SO? Big whoop! Not needed! Its a BIOS, its not meant to be user friendly! You don't need to be in there mucking with things if you don't know what they are!

GPT disk support... ok how many systems are using this? HANDS UP! UP HIGH! ! Still searching! This can be added to current BIOS architecture. You can't tell me Award etc. can not do this.

Scripting - REALLY! What nucklehead thinks this a good idea in a BIOS!

Fine we need to improve the BIOS to handle new technology ... fine... but some of this is just crap not needed, and like many other things solutions looking for problems. Scripting in a BIOS, talk about a !$(!*()$!() security hole big enough for a battleship... GEEZ!
--
1311393600 - Back to Black.....Black....Black....


FF4m3

@bhn.net
said by TuxRaiderPen:

The intended goal of "Secure" Boot is LOCKOUT Linux! Period. Any one, ANY ONE, ANY ONE! who believes otherwise is just fooling them selves...Yes, when the idea for it came about... it probably was for what its stated name is, but is been corrupted along the birth canal to its current mess.

+1

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to TuxRaiderPen

FSF, LF? You will have factions who will not agree to either running this.

It's hardly Intel and Microsoft's fault that the open-source advocates can't stop squabbling like children. Or perhaps that should be 'like politicians', since they're apparently more interested in consolidating their positions than helping those whose interests they claim to have at heart.

TuxRaiderPen

join:2009-09-19
said by dave:
It's hardly Intel and Microsoft's fault that the open-source advocates can't stop squabbling like children. Or perhaps that should be 'like politicians', since they're apparently more interested in consolidating their positions than helping those whose interests they claim to have at heart.
I don't think any one with any stake in OS on equipment should be involved in this whole signing thing...

And absolutely not verisign they are more corrupt than the 2 players you mention, and the FSF and LF combined.

No I don't know who.....and no I don't need the "UN" involved in it or TubeGore. A respected, third party ... OK... time for more FlavorAde and meds, cause with that one I've obvisouly lost it.

BUT irregardless of who you get to be this "independent neutral third party" [glurp!] . . . what is going to FORCE/MANDATE/REQUIRE that "Linux KEY", "BSD KEY", "Solaris key", is going to be present? ? IN PLACE OR IN ADDITION to the lamer "OS" key? ANY OEM/ODM even thinking about including a key other than one particular "OS" key will be getting a visit from the ms thugs to 'splain it' how the new licensing works. The same old crap thats been going on for decades.
--
1311393600 - Back to Black.....Black....Black....


FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to FF4m3
said by FF4m3 :

I've sent the FSF a link to the this thread.

Here's the response:

From: Jeanne Rasata via RT [info@fsf.org]
Sent: 07/04/12 12:06 PM
Subject: [gnu.org #764416] "Secure Boot" Whitepaper

Thank you very much for your feedback. We will look into it.
Thanks for supporting free software.
Sincerely,
j.

--
Jeanne Rasata
Program Assistant
Free Software Foundation


dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to TuxRaiderPen
I conclude you're against it because you are unable to solve the problem.

So, just turn off Secure Boot and you're done (at least on x86).

ANY OEM/ODM even thinking about including a key other than one particular "OS" key will be getting a visit from the ms thugs to 'splain it' how the new licensing works.

Oh, why didn't you say? You're a conspiracy nut.

So, just turn off Secure Boot and you're done (at least on x86).

TuxRaiderPen

join:2009-09-19
said by dave:
I conclude you're against it because you are unable to solve the problem.
Secure Boot at this time is really only needed for one "OS."

Its solves nothing really, security wise.

said by dave:
So, just turn off Secure Boot and you're done (at least on x86).
First I plan to.

said by TuxRaiderPen:

Any new hardware I get will be:

UEFI and Secure Boot - DISABLED
Legacy BIOS ENABLED
UEFI BIOS REPALCED with a NON UEFI and I will be actively sourcing motherboards with just that ability and BIOS(s).


If your reading comprehension had kicked in you would have read the above in a prior message.

said by dave:
Oh, why didn't you say? You're a conspiracy nut.
No. If you don't think ms is 'splain'ng' to OEM's on this, then YOUR the nut! Its about as bad if not worse than the whole payola in the record [music] business.

Any one who fails to get that xyz OEM is going to be heavily pressured and other tactics to be sure that NO KEY other than the "annointed and approved" key is in the BIOS.

said by dave:
So, just turn off Secure Boot and you're done (at least on x86).

Again, rereading prior post, will show:

said by TuxRaiderPen:

Any new hardware I get will be:

UEFI and Secure Boot - DISABLED
Legacy BIOS ENABLED
UEFI BIOS REPALCED with a NON UEFI and I will be actively sourcing motherboards with just that ability and BIOS(s).
Plain and simple bolied down, UEFI, is just more whippersnappers who got bored and could not just leave well enough alone and find something more constructive to do in with their coding.

Its a BASIC INPUT/OUTPUT SYSTEM, it is NOT a !@$!&*&$!*(&$!*(@& *! GUI system... and you don't need no !*()@&$!()@*$!()* mouse to change things in the BIOS!

Scripting in a BIOS? For WHAT?! ! Security hole wider than a battelship!

What you need is a BASIC system to display the settings and allow changes. NOTHING MORE. So it don't have cute little stupid icons, or mouse movements, or touch screen, or explain what any of this does... aaahhhh poor little idolts can't handle it... waaahhhhaaa.. be lucky you don't have to bootstrap your PC's to start them! Been there, done it! I would have zero issue with going back to it, and maybe even dig out the punch tape, cards, and TTY's!

Want to add GPT support or better support for larger HD's, or other things, fine! Doesn't mean we need this mess!

I will say it again... when it started, Secure Boot, probably had good intentions and merit... at this point it does not!

Your missing the ball and the game... its over here! ! ! Ignore the man behind the curtain! And your little dog too!
--
1311393600 - Back to Black.....Black....Black....


firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
reply to markofmayhem
said by markofmayhem:

I implore you to rise up and not be the harbinger of FUD.

"Microsoft's Secure Boot", no, it is UEFI's Secure Boot instituted, developed, patent-owned by Intel: a company that actively supports, develops, and further's the goals, success, and life of Linux. Intel also "honed" many of the Secure Boot features under "Trusted Boot", a module that server/enterprise LINUX has used for many years as well as Apple's EFI in Mac (and Macbooks). Microsoft won the lap... stop claiming defeat and win the race.

You are engaging in FUD yourself even if it's carefully worded bits of part of the whole picture.

First, Intel makes chips, sometimes that expands to a circuit board with their name on it, they create some software elements for some of their chips, it mostly ends there and their involvement in this process is their name on the bottom of the specs for UEFI. Like politics, just because you vote or sign your name on the law doesn't mean you wrote it.

Microsoft sells the product that individuals and businesses buy and use. Microsoft sets the rules in that sector of their products by imposing restrictions and requirements of the OEM suppliers that sell the hardware that uses their software. This includes restrictions put in place that specifically do not affect their products in any way. Since in computing most people don't build their own products from parts, people have historically relied on hardware designed around standards that ensure that the concept of a "PC compatible" computer is just that and not a "Microsoft compatible" computer. Now that they have a way years after EFI itself first appearing they modify the rules of the game by changing the very first bit that a computer processes when it powers on.

You go on sarcastically about Fedora and Microsoft colluding but I bet you would be hard pressed to find a Red Hat or Fedora person in the industry or even casually using them that is not skilled and even responsible for current Microsoft software in a commercial aspect. This whole thing is exactly what the big industry players in the US want and it satisfies their needs 100%, no drawbacks and they don't care how hard it makes things for anyone else. It's the typical result from every "Linux user" who goes on everyday talking about all the Microsoft things they deal with. This means the big player in Linux who most of the time gets to set the rules is never going to set the rules in a way that puts Linux out in front to dominate all markets.. This is Red Hat and this has always been Red Hat and people get upset when it's pointed out because Red Hat makes them lots of money.
--
Say no to astroturfing. actions > Ignore Author


markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
said by firephoto:

You are engaging in FUD yourself even if it's carefully worded bits of part of the whole picture.

Please help me find fear, uncertainty, and/or doubt in my posts. I attempted to do the opposite. I am concerned I failed and would be happy to see the examples to do better next time. The whole "cornerstone" of my argument is to pick-up the crying child shaking in the corner wrapped up in the fetal position screaming "Mommy, THE SHADOWS!!!" and instruct them to turn on the light...

said by firephoto:

First, Intel makes chips, sometimes that expands to a circuit board with their name on it, they create some software elements for some of their chips, it mostly ends there and their involvement in this process is their name on the bottom of the specs for UEFI. Like politics, just because you vote or sign your name on the law doesn't mean you wrote it.

For the most part, yes: the ventures here are part of the "Intel Network". As for UEFI, no.

Intel wrote EFI from the ground up and handed the licensing over to a public "board", UEFI. Secure Boot is from Intel's EFI. Insyde, AMI, and Phoenix collaborated with Intel, all four are the official author's of UEFI 2.x Secure Boot from development to implementation. It is actually chip agnostic.

Intel is involved in more software products than just "drivers" and tool suites for hardware.

said by firephoto:

You go on sarcastically about Fedora and Microsoft colluding

I have done no such thing. Secure Boot is a "PC Compatible" spec. Linux should be "compatible". Two methods are first out of the gate, one by Red Hat and another by Ubuntu. They are fragmented. Condemning both without any offered solution is not a "white paper".

said by TuxRaiderPen:

said by markofmayhem:

Microsoft was convinced, through market preasure, to join the OSS Virtual Machine eco system. Through the same preasure, they can be preasured to join a global OPEN PK/KeK system (lock them out of the server space and see them agree to a board hosted solution).

What is going to "pressure" OEM/ODM's to do such a lockout? Yeah Dell is going to not sell equipment that will not run "server 'OS'" from ms. Yeah right... The exact tactic will be you want to sell computers with this "OS" then you will sell hardware able to run "server 'OS'."

VM's. Microsoft is getting their ass kicked. It would not be a stretch to force the HyperVisor code given to the Linux kernel to be signed by Microsoft with a non-Microsoft key. Humble starts...

Also in server space, the hardware is not sold as "OS agnostic". Dell makes millions off of servers that don't run "server 'OS'" from Microsoft, as does HP and Lenovo. It is the further support of the server's state of functionality where profit lies, not the sale of the hardware assembled. Pressure from the server space has been successfully utilized numerous times already: repeat it. This would take a more unified effort, a common theme to solving this issue... fragmentation is not helping on this front. Linux is a platform, should it not be treated at-least-equally with Windows in this regard? Why does it not have a Platform Key?
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to firephoto
said by firephoto:

This whole thing is exactly what the big industry players in the US want and it satisfies their needs 100%, no drawbacks and they don't care how hard it makes things for anyone else. It's the typical result from every "Linux user" who goes on everyday talking about all the Microsoft things they deal with.

That pretty much sums it up, the more I read about this, I know it will be possible to get smaller *nixes working despite Secure Boot/UEFI, but it's going to be a much larger PITA than it is with a BIOS, and I don't think this will be good (at least initially) for the Linux ecosystem.
--
Everything in moderation... Including Moderation --Oscar Wilde

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
Let's not confuse UEFI in general (which as far as I'm aware, Linux supports just fine) with Secure Boot, even though some people seem to do that intentionally.

No need that I see to go back to firmware originally designed by one vendor for the needs of one operating system, since extended largely at the behest of Microsoft, and in the grip of large industry players. Even if TuxRaiderPen See Profile somehow thinks an ACPI BIOS is 'purer' than UEFI.

Sure, we could extend BIOS to add all the useful(*) UEFI features, but why? Then we'd have something that no-one supports yet, compared to UEFI which has been shipping for a few years.

(*)GUI not included in "useful" - that much I agree. My Intel firmware doesn't do GUI, and in fact it was a long time before I noticed it was not just a BIOS...


FF4m3

@bhn.net
said by dave:

Let's not confuse UEFI in general (which as far as I'm aware, Linux supports just fine) with Secure Boot

According to Unified Extensible Firmware Interface:

Linux has been able to use EFI at boot time since early 2000, using the elilo EFI boot loader or, more recently, EFI versions of GRUB. Grub+Linux also supports booting from a GUID partition table without UEFI.


TuxRaiderPen

join:2009-09-19
reply to dave
said by dave:
Let's not confuse UEFI in general (which as far as I'm aware, Linux supports just fine) with Secure Boot, even though some people seem to do that intentionally.
UEFI and Secure Boot (at least in its bastarized incarnation) are junk.

said by dave:
No need that I see to go back to firmware originally designed by one vendor for the needs of one operating system, since extended largely at the behest of Microsoft, and in the grip of large industry players. Even if TuxRaiderPen See Profile somehow thinks an ACPI BIOS is 'purer' than UEFI.

Sure, we could extend BIOS to add all the useful(*) UEFI features, but why? Then we'd have something that no-one supports yet, compared to UEFI which has been shipping for a few years.
Then convince me why ANY of the nonsense such as scrpiting, drivers, secure boot, and even GPT disks (really how many corporate or even average users use them? its a niche.... on average for Jane User the current partitioning limits are not really limits at all. GPT does nothing but complicate the matter, in way which does nothing for *average* Jane User.)

We need to extend the BIOS to add new CPU support, chipset support, larger hard drives, etc.. Fine. . . . the rest.. really of no use.

Hmmm...seems to AWARD/AMI/Phoneix etc. are improving their current BIOS offerings to handle newer CPU, chipsets, larger disks.

Otherwise we wouldn't be using most of the hardware we have now, the majority of systems are still "Legacy BIOS" systems v. UEFI.

Convince me!

Mouse - big whoop!

Drivers, scripting, a shell - FOR WHAT! Its a BIOS! Not an OS! Oh.. you can do updates with out booting an OS... So? Really thats your big gain? It can play DVD's or CD's with out booting... again yawn.

Starting to sound alot like an OS to me!

Oh but xyz OS takes to long to boot... OK.. compare a modern OS boot up to a PDP8e via bootstrap on toggle switches in otcal, which is faster? Good grief! Talk about needy.... geezz... NEXT!

So convince me!

Hint: You have little to no chance.. but you can try!
--
1311393600 - Back to Black.....Black....Black....


markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
Convince me you are not on a computer using U/EFI right now...


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to dave
said by dave:

Let's not confuse UEFI in general (which as far as I'm aware, Linux supports just fine) with Secure Boot, even though some people seem to do that intentionally.

Fair enough.

said by dave:

(*)GUI not included in "useful" - that much I agree. My Intel firmware doesn't do GUI, and in fact it was a long time before I noticed it was not just a BIOS...

Why does everybody always hate on the GUI? That's a mostly rhetorical question, but realistically I'm more concerned about good computer habits, whether these are happening on the GUI or the command line.
--
Everything in moderation... Including Moderation --Oscar Wilde


rexbinary
Mod King
Premium
join:2005-01-26
Plano, TX
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

2 recommendations

reply to FF4m3

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Good to see they're working overtime at Minitrue.


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
said by dave:

Good to see they're working overtime at Minitrue.

That's pretty funny actually...
--
Everything in moderation... Including Moderation --Oscar Wilde

TuxRaiderPen

join:2009-09-19
reply to El Quintron
said by El Quintron:
Why does everybody always hate on the GUI? That's a mostly rhetorical question, but realistically I'm more concerned about good computer habits, whether these are happening on the GUI or the command line.
Why do you need a GUI in a BIOS, again BIOS

99% of the users have NO BUSINESS being in the BIOS, period. so making it easier to use is really not on the table.
--
1311393600 - Back to Black.....Black....Black....


rexbinary
Mod King
Premium
join:2005-01-26
Plano, TX
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
Click for full size
Click for full size
said by TuxRaiderPen:

said by El Quintron:
Why does everybody always hate on the GUI? That's a mostly rhetorical question, but realistically I'm more concerned about good computer habits, whether these are happening on the GUI or the command line.
Why do you need a GUI in a BIOS, again BIOS

99% of the users have NO BUSINESS being in the BIOS, period. so making it easier to use is really not on the table.

I really like the GUI in the BIOS on my new ASUS motherboard.
--
Verizon FiOS subscriber since 2005 | Mac owner since 1990 | Fedora user since 2006 | CentOS user since 2007 | "Anyone who is unwilling to learn is entitled to absolutely nothing." - graysonf | EDIT: I seldom post without an edit.


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
said by rexbinary:

I really like the GUI in the BIOS on my new ASUS motherboard.

Same here... I have the P8VZ77 and although it's cloudy grey instead of red it's pretty cool looking.
--
Everything in moderation... Including Moderation --Oscar Wilde

TuxRaiderPen

join:2009-09-19
reply to rexbinary

A nice BASIC BIOS screen
said by rexbinary:
I really like the GUI in the BIOS on my new ASUS motherboard.
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o

My eyes! My EYES! ! ! ! :o :o :o

:p :p :p

really is any of that needed v. the current simple BASIC screens? ? ? ? REALLY?

No.

said by markofmayhem:
Convince me you are not on a computer using U/EFI right now...
Simply to amuse myself....I am not rebooting to take photos of the BIOS for you.

»www.asrock.com/mb/NVIDIA/K10N780SLIX3-WiFi/

 
cleo-tuxraider-desktop # dmidecode --type 0
# dmidecode 2.9
SMBIOS 2.5 present.
 
Handle 0x0000, DMI type 0, 24 bytes
BIOS Information
        Vendor: American Megatrends Inc.
        Version: P1.60
        Release Date: 03/23/2009
        Address: 0xF0000
        Runtime Size: 64 kB
        ROM Size: 1024 kB
        Characteristics:
                PCI is supported
                BIOS is upgradeable
                BIOS shadowing is allowed
                Boot from CD is supported
                Selectable boot is supported
                BIOS ROM is socketed
                EDD is supported
                5.25"/1.2 MB floppy services are supported (int 13h)
                3.5"/720 KB floppy services are supported (int 13h)
                3.5"/2.88 MB floppy services are supported (int 13h)
                Print screen service is supported (int 5h)
                8042 keyboard services are supported (int 9h)
                Serial services are supported (int 14h)
                Printer services are supported (int 17h)
                CGA/mono video services are supported (int 10h)
                ACPI is supported
                USB legacy is supported
                LS-120 boot is supported
                ATAPI Zip drive boot is supported
                BIOS boot specification is supported
                Function key-initiated network boot is supported
                Targeted content distribution is supported
        BIOS Revision: 8.15
 
cleo-tuxraider-desktop # 
 
cleo-tuxraider-desktop # dmidecode --type 2
# dmidecode 2.9
SMBIOS 2.5 present.
 
Handle 0x0002, DMI type 2, 15 bytes
Base Board Information
        Manufacturer: ASRock
        Product Name: K10N780SLIX3-WiFi
        Version:                       
        Serial Number:                       
        Asset Tag:                       
        Features:
                Board is a hosting board
                Board is replaceable
        Location In Chassis:                       
        Chassis Handle: 0x0003
        Type: Motherboard
        Contained Object Handles: 0
 
cleo-tuxraider-desktop  # 
 
 

--
1311393600 - Back to Black.....Black....Black....


markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
Nice... but the only output that shows non-EFI is the "NFORCE 780a" part. SMBIOS is on UEFI boards as well, interfaced through UEFI's "PI". Interstingly enough, the NFORCE 780i was EFI, hardcoded in a CMS chip to provide "Legacy BIOS".

I have a treat for all of you, I'm not sure why this hasn't been posted elsewhere.... maybe I should buy some stock in pharmaceutical companies before sharing:

President of UEFI is Tony Pierce. He is a Microsoft employee with the title "Technical Evangelist" in the "Windows Hardware Group". Enjoy!
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix

TuxRaiderPen

join:2009-09-19
said by markofmayhem:
Nice... but the only output that shows non-EFI is the "NFORCE 780a" part. SMBIOS is on UEFI boards as well, interfaced through UEFI's "PI". Interstingly enough, the NFORCE 780i was EFI, hardcoded in a CMS chip to provide "Legacy BIOS".

I didn't state anything about SMBIOS being or not being on one BIOS or another...again... reading past whats on the page.

Well, as I stated, I am not rebooting for you. And I forget the ADD bunch don't read, and has to have everything put on their plate:

" 8Mb AMI BIOS
- AMI Legal BIOS
- Supports "Plug and Play"
- ACPI 1.1 Compliance Wake Up Events
- Supports Jumperfree
- SMBIOS 2.3.1 Support
- CPU, DRAM, Chipset Core, PCIE Bridge Multi-adjustment"

»www.asrock.com/mb/NVIDIA/K10N780SLIX3-WiFi/

It most assuredly is NOT UEFI. I don't have any thing but those nice BASIC screens for a BIOS.

Versus a board I will never touch:
"
- 32Mb AMI UEFI Legal BIOS with GUI support
- Supports "Plug and Play"
- ACPI 1.1 Compliance Wake Up Events
- Supports jumperfree
- SMBIOS 2.3.1 Support
- CPU, VCCM, NB, SB Voltage Multi-adjustment
"

»www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/Fatal1ty 990FX Professional/?cat=Specifications

I sourced that board specifically to ensure that it was no polluted then.

said by markofmayhem:
I have a treat for all of you, I'm not sure why this hasn't been posted elsewhere....
President of UEFI is Tony Pierce. He is a Microsoft employee with the title "Technical Evangelist" in the "Windows Hardware Group". Enjoy!

And there you have it!

And you peolpe wonder why I told you "intel" is just the front shill for this!

Proof enough of what this really is and WHO REALLY is in the drivers seat.
--
1311393600 - Back to Black.....Black....Black....


markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
"AMI BIOS" means nothing... oh man, why do I bother. UEFI is underneath the "GUI" as well, has been for nearly 20 years.

UEFI screenshot:

--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to TuxRaiderPen
said by TuxRaiderPen:

It most assuredly is NOT UEFI. I don't have any thing but those nice BASIC screens for a BIOS.

My Intel board assuredly has UEFI, and yet for weeks I thought it was Ye Olde Biosse, because it looked exactly like it: traditional blue on grey characters, keyboard-driven menus, etc.

There's one little line in the setup screens which determines whether it acts like UEFI or like BIOS when it boots a disk.


El Quintron
Resident Mouth Breather
Premium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to markofmayhem
said by markofmayhem:

oh man, why do I bother.

Because you care, and that's why your contributions are valuable to this forum.

Disagree or not, I'd rather you kept on posting.

Cheers,
EQ
--
Everything in moderation... Including Moderation --Oscar Wilde