dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
37

rexbinary
MOD King
Premium Member
join:2005-01-26
Plano, TX
·Frontier FiberOp..

2 edits

rexbinary to TuxRaiderPen2

Premium Member

to TuxRaiderPen2

Re: Linux Foundation UEFI Secure Boot Key Delays Explained

Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
said by TuxRaiderPen2:

UEFI has nothing to do with OSS or Linux, other than being a hinderance to booting, BY DESIGN.

UEFI does not equal secure boot, and you are referring to an interface, not secure boot. Regardless if it's graphics or text, secure boot is a shackle as long as Microsoft holds the keys.

I don't have to turn it on since I built my own, but people that don't or can't build there own will have it on by default. That's the issue.
grunze510
join:2009-02-14
Cote Saint-Luc, QC

1 edit

grunze510

Member

said by rexbinary:

said by TuxRaiderPen2:

UEFI has nothing to do with OSS or Linux, other than being a hinderance to booting, BY DESIGN.

UEFI does not equal secure boot, and you are referring to an interface, not secure boot. Regardless if it's graphics or text, secure boot is a shackle as long as Microsoft holds the keys.

I don't have to turn it on since I built my own, but people that don't or can't build there own will have it on by default. That's the issue.

I think you're the only one in the whole thread that understands the difference between UEFI and Secure Boot, being that Secure Boot is an optional feature of UEFI. For example, the 5-year-old iMac that I'm using has a BIOS compatibility mode and can run Windows XP, Vista, 7 (haven't tested), and 8 (release preview) just fine.

Also, now that new laptops with Windows 8 are available, does anyone know if using Windows 8 without Secure Boot is as simple as disabling Secure Boot from the UEFI options, or is it more involved? Unless they changed something recently, I'm pretty sure the Windows 8 Genuine badge requires that Secure Boot can be turned off (but not the Windows RT badge).

EDIT: Forgot the Windows RT bit.

TuxRaiderPen2
Make America Great Again
join:2009-09-19

TuxRaiderPen2 to rexbinary

Member

to rexbinary
said by rexbinary:
UEFI does not equal secure boot, and you are referring to an interface, not secure boot. Regardless if it's graphics or text, secure boot is a shackle as long as Microsoft holds the keys.


I did not state that UEFI = secure|restricted boot, please quit infering that in my posts. I am fully aware of what UEFI is, and that secure|restricted boot are features of UEFI.

I am really getting tired of readers not reading posts and infering what I didn't post.

If you didn't read it in my posts its not there, I don't infer, I post blunty and what I mean.

As I posted UEFI is nothing but a hinderance to boot Linux, look at several posts about booting on UEFI systems PRIOR to this and the issues that they had. Add in secure|restricted boot and the headaches just keep coming...

You and others can post all the "cute" photos of your BIOS. To quote Shania... "That doesn't impress me!"
said by rexbinary:
I don't have to turn it on since I built my own, but people that don't or can't build there own will have it on by default. That's the issue.
I am aware of that, but yet some here refuse to accept that its an issue... oh you can disable it... for now... but you can't on ARM based units that come with winslobber ate.....

I build all my desktops and servers my self... but laptops... this is going to be an issue going forward....And that brings up all those BF laptop deals, probably a good thing I avoided them... as many had winslobber ate on them and probably would have been nothing but headaches to erradicate the infestation on them... I am not looking forward to getting a new laptop next year. Not in the least and some of the Linux specific laptop vendors don't use approved hardware ie: AMD processors and nVidia video. And I am not paying a premium just for Linux nor any other OS or lack of OS.

rexbinary
MOD King
Premium Member
join:2005-01-26
Plano, TX
·Frontier FiberOp..

rexbinary

Premium Member

said by TuxRaiderPen2:


As I posted UEFI is nothing but a hinderance to boot Linux, look at several posts about booting on UEFI systems PRIOR to this and the issues that they had. Add in secure|restricted boot and the headaches just keep coming...

UEFI is simply progress. Secure Boot is as well with the keys in the hands of the owner of the hardware. When the hardware progresses, the software progresses. This generates issues that are overcome.

Since the major distros have decided to use Microsoft's keys, they now must bow to Microsoft.

As educated users, we don't have to bow....maybe. Provided hardware vendors continue to offer an off switch on Secure Boot we won't have to bow, but again that's up to Microsoft. Sadly, the hardware vendors do what Microsoft says, but so far Microsoft has said they can enable the ability to disable secure boot. (On x86, ARM is a different story.)

The Linux Foundation made a mistake in my opinion by not becoming a key signing authority of their own saying the could not cover the cost. That or suing Microsoft.

So Tux, what are you going to do when you build your next rig with a 'cute' UFEI? Stick with the defaults?

El Quintron
Cancel Culture Ambassador
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Tronna

El Quintron to rexbinary

Premium Member

to rexbinary
said by rexbinary:

UEFI does not equal secure boot, and you are referring to an interface, not secure boot. Regardless if it's graphics or text, secure boot is a shackle as long as Microsoft holds the keys.

I don't have to turn it on since I built my own, but people that don't or can't build there own will have it on by default. That's the issue.

That's the crux of the issue... there are valid reasons to suspicious of secure boot, but we should be afraid of the real reasons not a lot of the FUD surrounding it.
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

dave to TuxRaiderPen2

Premium Member

to TuxRaiderPen2
said by TuxRaiderPen2:

As I posted UEFI is nothing but a hinderance to boot Linux, look at several posts about booting on UEFI systems PRIOR to this and the issues that they had.

And yet other operating systems manage to support this rather old technology.

Methinks you rant too much.

By continuing to spew your FUD about UEFI on topics that are about Secure Boot, you contribute to the general confusion about the two, even if you yourself claim to be unconfused.

Also, check for the difference between "imply" and "infer".

TuxRaiderPen2
Make America Great Again
join:2009-09-19

TuxRaiderPen2 to rexbinary

Member

to rexbinary
said by rexbinary:
So Tux, what are you going to do when you build your next rig with a 'cute' UFEI? Stick with the defaults?
Like many things being foisted on users like me who are not interested....

Short term: I am hoarding non UEFI boards for just that purpose to avoid it for as long as possible. Which can take CPU upgrades and hold 16-32GB RAM.

And will look for non GUI based boards till they no longer exist. Then do what I need once.

Disable secure/restricted boot
Turn off num lock
change boot order

This is basically a UEFI tax now, similar to another tax... I really see no point in all this looks cuite. Mostly aimed at the ADD crowd of today who need glitz ... doesn't make understanding what CAS is and that changing that setting may not be a good idea unless you have a clue... but the cute GUI and even the current basic BIOS allows you to change it.. but the cute GUI just entices them to change things they probably don't need to mess with. And as I stated melt their motherboards.. which I hope they do.

Long term:

Thats why I am not looking forward to purchasing laptops

Tolerate a bunch GUI crap thats not needed to change a few settings once and get out it forever.
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

dave

Premium Member

And yet my UEFI systems have a user interface that is indistinguisable from the "character mode menu" of my older BIOS machines.

What I take from this is that, as usual, your target is badly chosen. The problem is not that UEFI permits vendors to come up with worthless glitz; it is that some vendors come up with worthless glitz.

Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium Member
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL

Maxo

Premium Member

said by dave:

And yet my UEFI systems have a user interface that is indistinguisable from the "character mode menu" of my older BIOS machines.

Same here. My work laptop is UEFI, but it you wouldn't immediately know by looking at it. I don't really see what the big deal is. I've used the MOBO configuration screens only two or three times. How often does one reconfigure their MOBO?

rolfp
no-shill zone
Premium Member
join:2011-03-27
Oakland, CA

1 recommendation

rolfp

Premium Member

said by Maxo:

said by dave:

And yet my UEFI systems have a user interface that is indistinguisable from the "character mode menu" of my older BIOS machines.

Same here. My work laptop is UEFI, but it you wouldn't immediately know by looking at it. I don't really see what the big deal is. I've used the MOBO configuration screens only two or three times. How often does one reconfigure their MOBO?

I don't see why anyone should be defensive about using the new interface. If I want to spend all day in it, taking screenshots or troubleshooting a broken motherboard, which is mostly what I've been doing with it since I got it, new BIOS chip seems to have fixed it, tyvm, What's it to ya?

If any boorish, insulting, ranting curmudgeon, posting in emacs or lynx or some such, can show me how EUFI is a hindrance to FOSS or its users or how his Etch-A-Sketch is a superior screenie tool, I'm all ears. As yet, I don't see a problem.

TuxRaiderPen2
Make America Great Again
join:2009-09-19

TuxRaiderPen2

Member

said by rolfp:
motherboard, which is mostly what I've been doing with it since I got it, new BIOS chip seems to have fixed it, tyvm, What's it to ya?
Can I DISABLE all those cute annoying wasteful ADD graphics? ? ?

1) Its wasted ROM space

2) Its wasted development time that could be used to address real issue in the BIOS itself not some useless GUI for the BIOS for "tweaker/melters."

You can have all that so long as I can disable ALL of it and get my bog standard character based screens. Can I do that? ? ?

Didn't think so...

Not on any I've seen and all the MB OEM's tout this as some fantastic thing... BIG WHOOOP!

Thats what its to me!
said by rolfp:
If any boorish, insulting, ranting curmudgeon, posting in

I proudly am, THANK YOU!
said by rolfp:
emacs or lynx or some such,
Don't use emacs, its interface is even more stupid than vi (flame away!), vi or nano only as its quick and easy on ssh sessions.
said by rolfp:
can show me how EUFI is a hindrance to FOSS or its users ....As yet, I don't see a problem.
Ok....heres one.....

[mythbusters voice] Theres your problem! [/mythbuster voice]

»www.kubuntuforums.net/sh ··· -hurdles

Heres a whole forum for problems...
»www.kubuntuforums.net/fo ··· sistance

There was a thread there that started that was probably 10 pages deep about UEFI and its wonderfulness... all to get cute ooogey GUI and a taking screen shots that a simple digital camera or Droid can do.

Again, allow me to turn it all off to simple basic character interface AND NOT HAVE ISSUES BOOTING.
said by rolfp:
or how his Etch-A-Sketch is a superior screenie tool, I'm all ears.
They make a serial connected Etch a Sketch!

Cool! ! Have to get one of those...

Not all change is good oogley googely graphics on everything is not a good thing...
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

dave

Premium Member

said by TuxRaiderPen2:

Its wasted ROM space

What is this, some save-a-transistor appeal?

What else would you have those transistors do? That would not be "bloat" according to someone?

We've moved beyond the M792-YB.

rolfp
no-shill zone
Premium Member
join:2011-03-27
Oakland, CA

1 recommendation

rolfp

Premium Member

The links you apparently pulled out of your hat are not obvious evidence of some intrinsic problem with uefi. In general, it's evidence of new technology taking time to understand and those who misidentify uefi as their problem; it's evidence of superficiality and empty rhetoric. I hear the various new editions of Windows all have many complainers and decriers of what they don't understand, have not yet learned, many complaints of those who are incapable of listening and/or are too lazy to try.

Man, your serial smoke and mirror poseur tirades have long ago grown quite old. FOSS doesn't need that kind of shit. Nobody does.

TuxRaiderPen2
Make America Great Again
join:2009-09-19

TuxRaiderPen2

Member

said by rolfp:
The links you apparently pulled out of your hat are not obvious evidence of some intrinsic problem with

No they were not pulled out of my hat... Till recently that forum didn't even exist...

There was a very extensive thread on a UEFI install of 12.04 which had all kinds of issues... there now is that subforum.
said by rolfp:
Man, your serial smoke and mirror poseur tirades have long ago grown quite old. FOSS doesn't need that kind of shit. Nobody does.


Your entitled to your opinion. I vehemently feel you and others are seriously ignoring the issues that RESTRCITED BOOT and/or SECURE boot poses (CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU INFERERS!???!) to Linux over all.

UEFI is a solution ala waycrap ... Need to improve on the BIOS to work with new hardware, chipsets, etc. great, but UEFI is above and beyond that.. 90% of the crap in UEFI is that crap, oooey gui interfaces, snapshots of screens, embedded players, embedded software??? REALLY!???!

Plain and simple RESTRICTED BOOT and/or SECURE BOOT are meant for one thing as implemented and released. Linux lockout.

If you don't want to to agree with that and bury your head in the sand as ms shovels in the sand and water, go right ahead. I am not! ms is evil, period. This is an anti competivie move, pure and simple, and the hugh and cry needs to be raised.. You don't care for my methods and I don't care for the solutions of most distros or most of the laisez faire attitude over it here. Maybe when this was some dream of an idea it was a good idea.. as IMPLEMENTED AND RELEASED it has ONE AND ONLY ONE GOAL.

Linux LOCKOUT ! ! Period.

MS has shown it already... most here just continue to blow it off.. YOUR LOSS.

rolfp
no-shill zone
Premium Member
join:2011-03-27
Oakland, CA

rolfp

Premium Member

You've got no idea what uefi is.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Un ··· nterface

The interface defined by the EFI specification includes data tables that contain platform information, and boot and runtime services that are available to the OS loader and OS. UEFI firmware provides several technical advantages over a traditional BIOS system:[11]

Ability to boot from large disks (over 2 TiB) with a GUID Partition Table, GPT.[12][13]
CPU-independent architecture[12]
CPU-independent drivers[12]
Flexible pre-OS environment, including network capability
Modular design
[..]
GNU/Linux supports GPT. Linux should be built with option "CONFIG_EFI_PARTITION" enabled.[20] GNU Parted is required to manage disks and partitions, as fdisk does not support GPT.

dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

1 edit

1 recommendation

dave to TuxRaiderPen2

Premium Member

to TuxRaiderPen2
said by TuxRaiderPen2:

90% of the crap in UEFI is that crap, oooey gui interfaces, snapshots of screens, embedded players, embedded software??? REALLY!???!

It is not mandatory for any firmware author to include such features.

And contrariwise, the old BIOS doesn't stop the likes of Dell from supplying their laptops with stupid embedded players (it's actually a reserved partition on the disk, with a dedicated button to boot from it) -- the point is that people that want to ship crap will find a way to ship crap; we might as well have standard crap.

Plain and simple RESTRICTED BOOT and/or SECURE BOOT are meant for one thing as implemented and released. Linux lockout.

Still can't get your head round the difference between UEFI and Secure Boot, I see. Or at least, still can't focus your ranting.

The presence or absence of GUI capability in firmware is independent of the presence or absence of Secure Boot support. So, while you continue to drift from one to another, we'll continue to not take you seriously.

EUS
Kill cancer
Premium Member
join:2002-09-10
canada

EUS to TuxRaiderPen2

Premium Member

to TuxRaiderPen2
I don't get your rant about UEFI GUI, BIOS is already GUI.

Steve
I know your IP address

join:2001-03-10
Tustin, CA

Steve

said by EUS:

I don't get your rant about UEFI GUI, BIOS is already GUI.

It's a plot from Microsoft!

TuxRaiderPen
A Warm Embrace
join:2009-06-02
Outer Rim

TuxRaiderPen to EUS

Member

to EUS
said by EUS:

I don't get your rant about UEFI GUI, BIOS is already GUI.

The BIOS font is probably Wingdings.
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

dave to EUS

Premium Member

to EUS
said by EUS:

BIOS is already GUI.

Everything still has VGA-compatibility, and VGA is a bitmapped display, so I suppose a sufficiently determined BIOS can draw whatever it wants. As witness the Intel logo on any Intel motherboard.

»embedded.communities.int ··· uefi-gui

Dustyn
Premium Member
join:2003-02-26
Ontario, CAN
·Carry Telecom
·TekSavvy Cable
Asus GT-AX11000
Technicolor TC4400

1 recommendation

Dustyn to TuxRaiderPen2

Premium Member

to TuxRaiderPen2
said by TuxRaiderPen2:

You and others can post all the "cute" photos of your BIOS. To quote Shania... "That doesn't impress me!"

If you're going to quote Shania, get it right.
"That don't impress me much!"