dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
24
share rss forum feed


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

1 recommendation

reply to FF4m3

Re: FSF Publishes Important Whitepaper on Secure Boot

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.

A more fact filled and less chicken little white paper by Linux Foundation predates Fedora and Ubuntu's recent decisions and can be found here.

quote:
We will ght Microsoft's attempt at enforcing Restricted Boot on ARM devices like smartphones and tablets. Like any other computer, users must be able to install free software operating systems on these devices. We will monitor Microsoft's behavior to make sure they do not deceive the public again by expanding these restrictions to other kinds of systems.
This is disingenuous. The only "stopping" that will occur is from the EULA. Why is Google's Android not mentioned here? iOS? Playbooks?
While the simple "toggle" to turn off Secure Boot will not be on ARM devices with Windows 8 installed, there is no simple "toggle" on ANY OTHER COMPETITIVE DEVICE either to install "free software". Don't target the least market shared company and claim it isn't blind, ignorant hatred in the same document.

Root kit, elevate permissions, install new .efi shell, change loader, install any OS you want: applicable to ARM and x86. We do this today to millions of iOS and Android devices, violating EULA and ToS along the way. Call them all out: "free computing" does not exist today without Secure Boot. Be all in, try to not be the hypocritical cry baby.

So what in the world is the motivation?

quote:
Software signed with self-generated keys has the downside of not working on the majority of computers right o the shelf, without the user taking some extra steps. We acknowledge that this is an issue, but in addition to insisting on (and contributing to) documentation to make the necessary process easy to follow, we will strive to solve this problem through political action against manufacturers and proprietary software companies who impede free software adoption. Encouraging free software distributors and users to trust Microsoft or any other proprietary software company as a precondition to exercising their freedoms is simply not an acceptable solution.
Ahhhh. So Microsoft does it wrong, no matter what (I neither agree nor disagree with that, actually). Fedora joined Microsoft's path, so that can never be correct. Ubuntu is doing it "like" Microsoft with their own key, so that can't be agreed to either. "Proprietary sofware company"... what is that, exactly???? My development efforts in open source are always "signed", you know, for package managers. Sometimes it is under a project name, other times it can be pushes/updates to an upstream project. Is "Oracle" a "proprietary software company" for open source? Is "Linux Foundation"? So is the big bad Oracle the same or not compared to the entire linux kernel???

Open source != anonymity

So I can self-sign myself and chose who to trust. I place myself as the "Platform key" and KeK into "proprietary software companies" to trust their software, such as:
Samba
Linux Foundation (the kernel, stupid)
NVidia
KDE
... and on.

I have more control over what does and what does not run on my PC. Restricted Boot? Maybe, sure. I am doing the restricting! More power and control is given to me, that is MORE liberty. Perhaps the word "freedom" is what we should question here....

1. Is the FSF implying that more freedom should be given to others to do as they wish on my PC without my consent and/or knowledge?
2. Is the FSF talking about freedom in liberty for me to control what runs on my PC?

1: Secure Boot is evil, then.
2: Secure Boot is empowering.

quote:
Secure Boot, done right, embodies the free software view of security, because it puts users { whether individuals, government agencies, or organizations { in control of their machines. Our thought experiment to demonstrate this is simple: Microsoft may be worried about malware written to take over Windows machines, but we view Windows itself as malware and want to keep it away from our machines. Does Secure Boot enable us to keep Windows from booting on a machine? It does: We can remove Microsoft's key from the boot rmware, and add our own key or other keys belonging to free software developers whose software we wish to trust.
This is on page one, clearly identifying the entire document as FUD. Secure Boot IS liberty, as they are telling us, then move on to some fictitious rant about Microsoft and how evil they are and they will soon destroy us all. Be smarter, solve and live the free software way instead of being closed minded with closed communities in the name of "openness". Disgusting, really. A bunch of cats dressed up like dogs complaining how bad one type of cat is. There is not two sides to Secure Boot. Currently there is "I hate Microsoft" and "I hate Microsoft more" camps running amok with diarrhea of the finger rants all over the place.

Remember when free and open-source was OS agnostic? Why did this beautiful, liberty filled initiative let the religious zealot camp of Linux destroy the movement? Linux was the bastion of intellect and computer science, a place where the weary and tired of market-forced decisions could be free to progress the science and art without bottom lines. It is quickly turning into a soap box of ignorance, or perhaps that is just what is being represented by post after post of FUD in this forum lately.

I miss the old ATU where Linux, BSD, and Unix was talked about instead of constantly discussing Microsoft, to ever increasingly include FUD.

Secure Boot on x86 machine options:
Disable it, move on
Keep it, find distro's that work "as is" (Fedora and Ubuntu first out of the gate)
Use it to take complete control of your machine (self sign PK, add KeK)

Options before Secure Boot on x86:
Install at will

Secure Boot on ARM machine options:
None without violating EULA and ToS

Options before Secure Boot on ARM:
None without violating EULA and ToS
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix


Steve
I know your IP address
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Foothill Ranch, CA
kudos:5

1 recommendation

said by markofmayhem:

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

If you support secure boot, the terrorists win



ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA

said by Steve:

said by markofmayhem:

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

If you support secure boot, the terrorists win


But what about the children?


FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to markofmayhem

It's interesting for me and possibly others, and published on numerous sites, simply because it is FSF's 'official' opinion, whether agreed with or not. I'm not gonna censor their position .



Steve
I know your IP address
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Foothill Ranch, CA
kudos:5
reply to ropeguru

Terrorists are the new children



markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
reply to FF4m3

said by FF4m3 :

It's interesting for me and possibly others, and published on numerous sites, simply because it is FSF's 'official' opinion, whether agreed with or not. I'm not gonna censor their position .

»/news

Censorship does not include intelligent review and cessation of spreading diseased rhetoric.

The technical hypocrisy and contradictions in this "white paper" are appalling. It is a propaganda document, not a white paper. Linux is the technical OS, "white paper" means something to us. Use a different definition else where.

Linux is strong, stable, and elegant to compete on its own merits without the need for lies, fear, uncertainty, doubt, deception, and other immoral tactics employed. Has defeat been sounded? Linux can only now spread if we lie about the others?
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix


FF4m3

@bhn.net

said by markofmayhem:

spreading diseased rhetoric

I'm OK with your analysis and allowing it to be posted.

So whining at me will achieve nada.

Tell the FSF.


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

said by FF4m3 :

said by markofmayhem:

spreading diseased rhetoric

I'm OK with your analysis and allowing it to be posted.

Huh? To allow means power to disallow exists... explain?

said by FF4m3 :

So whining at me will achieve nada.

Perhaps not this time, but I can dream of a day of coming to ATU without anonymous people spreading anti-Microsoft FUD posts all over the place and actually read posts that deal with "THINGS UNIX" instead of the new ATU which is quickly becoming ATAM.

said by FF4m3 :

Tell the FSF.

We have. There are reasons official Linux organizations and foundations don't link-back. Hatred and ignorance are for the weak, let them also choose to perish alone.
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix


Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
reply to markofmayhem

The FSF consistently criticizes all devices, including hardware that ships with iOS and Android, for blocking device owners (or trying to block them at least) from being able to put different software. They also criticize iOS for only allowing software that comes from its store and not allowing third-party installation like Android does.



FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to markofmayhem

said by markofmayhem:

said by FF4m3 :

said by markofmayhem:

spreading diseased rhetoric

I'm OK with your analysis and allowing it to be posted.

Huh? To allow means power to disallow exists... explain?

Geesh man, it's not rocket science. This is a moderated public forum. You and the rest of us are permitted to post.

Anyway, dispensing with all the previous drama, I've sent the FSF a link to the this thread.


markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
reply to Maxo

said by Maxo:

The FSF consistently criticizes all devices, including hardware that ships with iOS and Android, for blocking device owners (or trying to block them at least) from being able to put different software. They also criticize iOS for only allowing software that comes from its store and not allowing third-party installation like Android does.

Good, and I know who they are. When they are honest and truthful, good for them. When they use uncertainty and doubt to instill fear, they were best left to be silent.
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix


markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
reply to FF4m3

said by FF4m3 :

Geesh man, it's not rocket science. This is a moderated public forum. You and the rest of us are permitted to post.

Anyway, dispensing with all the previous drama, I've sent the FSF a link to the this thread.

C'mon, man, register... you've contributed to this forum long enough to deserve being timely placed in-line

And couldn't you find a pro-Linux article to post once-in-a-while? Please
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix


FF4m3

@verizon.net

said by markofmayhem:

And couldn't you find a pro-Linux article to post once-in-a-while? Please

I've been running Linux for almost 15 years and am a 100% FOSS supporter.

I support free speech and an open exchange of differing perspectives, even through disagreement.

I do not favor intentional OS lockouts and resulting unrequested and undesirable user constraints.

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

1 recommendation

reply to markofmayhem

Agreed. A particular example is this whining:

quote:
It is already bad enough that nearly all computers sold come with Microsoft Windows pre-installed. In order to convince users to try free software, we must convince them to remove the operating system that came on their computers (or to divide their hard drives and make room for a new system, perceptually risking their data in the process).
As if that is anything to do with UEFI secure boot.

There *is* an intelligent debate to be had, particularly on the ARM issue, but there is apparently no intelligent life in the FSF.


No_Strings
Premium,MVM,Ex-Mod 2008-13
join:2001-11-22
The OC
kudos:6

1 recommendation

We have met the enemy, and he is us.



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

said by No_Strings:

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

My point as well...

And I agree with you dave See Profile, the ARM issue is distressing. x86 does give us complete control over the keys installed. ARM is a mess without Secure Boot, requiring a virus to infect ourselves to gain elevated priveledges. While Secure Boot will not stop "rooting", it will slow the time from device sale to root available with less popular devices possibly not getting a root ("jailbreak" for iOS folks) at all.

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; but a user executed attack has successfully given control to the keys. ARM will not be unbreakable, but will be an extra hurdle to gain control: just as it is today with no honorable or justified reason to continue tomorrow, well, unless you are these folks:

Dell
HP
Verizon
Sprint
AT&T
T-Mobile....

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?

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). Secure Boot can be brought to its intended goal: KNOW WHO developed the execution of pre-OS files with trust employed by the user. Finger wagging when creative typing was needed will defeat to default and Microsoft didn't even have to put forth effort for this victory.... blah, oh well. Maybe next time? Probably not, it is easier to hate the straw man than bail the field.
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix

TuxRaiderPen

join:2009-09-19

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...