Microsoft trying to prevent you installing linux - sign the petition now!
GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
i will respond with a trick question, why the hell wouldn't you wanna run linux on an ipad? and why should you care if someone does?
frankly if i had an ipad i'd be scrambling for a way to put Linux on it just for the additional flexibility a Linux based system offers.
Good luck with that one! Seriously! Spend close to a grand to crack the case and hopefully no damage to the system. It is yours to do with when purchased but when you break it, one useless little paper weight. Come to think of it, a rock would be a better. Just do not have to spend a grand to get the rock.
I've got a new iPad, meets the needs for what it was purchased for. I like my Gnu/Linux machines but have no desire nor need to have Gnu/Linux on the iPad.
I really do not think the iPad with Gnu/Linux would be much different than what the API/UI supports now.
i will respond with a trick question, why the hell wouldn't you wanna run linux on an ipad? and why should you care if someone does?
Because at least half of the IPad's cost is the software installed on it and associated services. By installing linux, you'll lose it all (assuming you won't brick the device in the process) and gain nothing instead - just bunch of half baked software. If you used few hundreds of bucks instead of toilet paper, then it would make as much sense as trying to install linux on ipad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frieza
frankly if i had an ipad i'd be scrambling for a way to put Linux on it just for the additional flexibility a Linux based system offers.
You need to fix the way you think asap, because you're willingly looking for the most inefficient, most expensive and most painful solution in order to defend some meaningless ideology. In MY opinion, this backwards and counterproductive, and might be a side effect of brainwashing. If you want powertoys on the iPad, then port software onto ipad - that'll be much faster and you won't lose access to apple services. Hell, you might even be able to sell it. No reason to port entire system onto different hardware just because you want a shell or something. It WAS the whole point of original opensource - if you want to run program on new platform, you have source code access and can modify the source code, port and rebuild it.
How is that I should know better as a moderator? This subject has nothing to do with me being a LQ moderator. My discussion within this thread has been as a LQ member. No where have I positioned my mod duties within the thread. No need for intervention when there are individuals that discuss intelligently with respect to each other.
No lose, the 'UEFI BIOS' will replace a 30 year old BIOS(16 bit) that is inhibited and does not fit with the growing needs for new technologies. Continued patching and extension of the current BIOS technology only opens doors for potential problems. BIOS extensions just create open doors. Illegal boot, Malware attacks, Virus or Trojans created by people who wish to do harm to a system to achieve mischievous results or take from the machine by illegal actions thus exposing information that may cause harm to owners of the equipment(s).
Plus having a table for the firmware will be advantages for other OS that are 'EFI/UEFI' aware and the keys are properly placed.
You do not know a thing about 'UEFI BIOS'. 'Secure boot' is a controllable option of the protocol. Plus this has nothing to do with legalities from a design perspective. Control of the protocol is available via utilities. If you do not like a secured system like some Apple hardware, it is your choice to buy or not to buy. My suggestion to you is to get familiar with the protocol for 'UEFI BIOS' as pertaining to new PC based equipment before making off the wall statements. OEM vendors will control the protocol not Microsoft. Utilities are provided to maintain and control 'UEFI BIOS' by the OEM. If the OEM does not provide the utilities for their equipment it is your choice to buy or not. Most 'UEFI' based system to date do have the utilities to control. Some Netbooks use a pre-BIOS that have limited control but still these are not locked nor 'secure boot'.
BTW, 'UEFI BIOS' protocol has been in active production for some manufactures(OEM) since 2008; Dell, HP and Lenovo to name a few. I will leave it to you to find the models for each.
Huh???
Is this supposed to be a reply? Why do you keep insisting that this about UEFI?
I give up.
You're simply ignoring all facts and posting off topic nonsense. (do we have an ignore button? one that works against mods?)
I give up.
You're simply ignoring all facts and posting off topic nonsense. (do we have an ignore button? one that works against mods?)
Yes, it is a reply! You made the statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
Get real?
You should know better as a moderator.
*You're pointing at the wrong UEFI (no, they're not compatible).
*"Secure Boot" has nothing to do with this.
*It's locking all hardware (everything needs to be signed; including video, tv, audio, ... hardware).
Which is not correct. For the statement about a 'mod' & "secure boot".
How do you think that my post is off topic? You made statements in post #73 and I responded. It does seem you do not know a thing about 'UEFI BIOS' by your statements;
Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
*You're pointing at the wrong UEFI (no, they're not compatible).
*"Secure Boot" has nothing to do with this.
*It's locking all hardware (everything needs to be signed; including video, tv, audio, ... hardware).
Plainly stated before it is a feature of the UEFI BIOS Protocol. Show me were it is not. Where am I pointing to the wrong UEFI? Please do not confuse the references to EFI and UEFI since Intel did hand off 'EFI' to 'UEFI'. Intel wanted to have one organization with 'EFI' so we now have 'UEFI' with contributing members of which Intel is a member of 'UEFI'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
The way I see it: it's a lost opportunity.
This could have been good (for everyone) if users (not vendors) are allowed to create their own keys as well.
With this current implementation it's no more than an anti piracy tool for Microsoft that allows vendors to cripple PCs as well (mac-style).
More FUD & just plain wrong!
Quote:
excerpt from 'UEFI';
The Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) is a specification that defines a software interface between an operating system and platform firmware. UEFI is a more secure replacement for the older BIOS firmware interface, present in all IBM PC-compatiblepersonal computers, which is vulnerable to bootkitmalware.[1][2]
The original EFI (Extensible Firmware Interface) specification was developed by Intel. In 2005, development of the EFI specification ceased in favour of UEFI, which had evolved from EFI 1.10. The UEFI specification is being developed by the industry-wide organization Unified EFI Forum.
UEFI is not restricted to any specific processor architecture and can run on top of, or instead of, older BIOS implementations.[3]
So from the above definition your statements are contradictorily.
Quote:
excerpt from UEFI Wiki; Red Hat developer Matthew Garrett in his article "UEFI secure booting" raised a concern that UEFI "secure boot" feature may impact Linux (machines with the Windows 8 logo with secure boot enabled that ships with only OEM and Microsoft keys will not boot a generic copy of Linux)[41][42] In response, Microsoft stated that customers may be able to disable the secure boot feature in the BIOS.[2][43] Concern remains that some OEMs might omit that capability in their computers.
Where in my posts to you are off topic and not factual? Please point that out? Support your statements with facts, not with innuendo, misguided information, personal assumptions or just plain FUD!
Yes, it is a reply! You made the statement: Which is not correct. For the statement about a 'mod' & "secure boot".
How do you think that my post is off topic? You made statements in post #73 and I responded. It does seem you do not know a thing about 'UEFI BIOS' by your statements; Plainly stated before it is a feature of the UEFI BIOS Protocol. Show me were it is not. Where am I pointing to the wrong UEFI? Please do not confuse the references to EFI and UEFI since Intel did hand off 'EFI' to 'UEFI'. Intel wanted to have one organization with 'EFI' so we now have 'UEFI' with contributing members of which Intel is a member of 'UEFI'.
Where in my posts to you are off topic and not factual? Please point that out? Support your statements with facts, not with innuendo, misguided information, personal assumptions or just plain FUD!
Ok. That mod comment was uncalled for, my apologies for that.
I obviously meant the UEFI 2.3.1 specification vs all the previous ones.
The whole issue with "secure boot" (the way keys are stored and used) is only valid for 2.3.1
see:http://www.uefi.org/specs/ (you'll have to sign it to read them)
None of your arguments change anything about this.
Plain FUD?
You quoted Matthew, did you read his follow up as well:
Quote:
Microsoft have responded to suggestions that Windows 8 may make it difficult to boot alternative operating systems. What's interesting is that at no point do they contradict anything I've said. As things stand, Windows 8 certified systems will make it either more difficult or impossible to install alternative operating systems.
The Linux Foundation obviously think it's an important issue. They've seen fit to produce quite a detailed document on the subject.
Interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Linux Foundation
The UEFI secure boot facility is designed to be readily usable by both proprietary and open
operating systems to improve the security of the bootstrap process. Some observers have
expressed concerns that secure boot could be used to exclude open systems from the market,
but, as we have shown above, there is no need for things to be that way. If vendors ship their
systems in the setup mode and provide a means to add new KEKs to the firmware, those systems
will fully support open operating systems while maintaining compliance with the Windows 8 logo
requirements. The establishment of an independent certificate authority for the creation of
KEKs would make interoperation easier, but is not necessary for these platforms to support open
systems.
Instead of attempting to stifle UEFI secure boot, why don't we encourage Microsoft and OEM's to implement this recommendation?
Instead of attempting to stifle UEFI secure boot, why don't we encourage Microsoft and OEM's to implement this recommendation?
If people are fans of windows this extra layer of security is great. But not everybody like using windows like me for example, besides, I don't want M$ or vendors telling what I can run on my PC after forking my hard spent money.
If people are fans of windows this extra layer of security is great. But not everybody like using windows like me for example, besides, I don't want M$ or vendors telling what I can run on my PC after forking my hard spent money.
If people are fans of windows this extra layer of security is great. But not everybody like using windows like me for example, besides, I don't want M$ or vendors telling what I can run on my PC after forking my hard spent money.
Okay, you convinced me that some people are absolutely hopeless.
Seems to me, to cut a long story short, what everyone is getting at is that Microsoft's 'requirement' is all very well but there MUST be a hardware manufacturer provided mechanism for the end user to control their own hardware. i.e. turn secure boot off if required. Again, it seems to me that this is what the 'petition' requires despite the admittedly somewhat sensationalist title. (I'm sure that was intended to grab people's attention before explaining further.
Anyway, I have (As already stated.) added my name and I stand by that.
Now, a trick question: why the hell would you want to run Linux on iPad?
If it was easy to dualboot an ipad into Linux, or Android, or windows xp, then I would do it. Especially if it did not break the warranty.
Look at it this way, I buy the hardware, the hardware manufacturer does not prevent me to install someone else's software, and I do it. That's the way i like it.
The other alternative is to buy 4 tablets instead of 1, not good for my bank account, not good for the environment either.
Anyway, I kind of agree that the iPad is a closed and protected ecosystem, but would never want this to happen on the PC. Remember, it means PERSONAL COMPUTER, not JAILED DEVICE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SigTerm
YOUR message does not help the community. You're spreading paranoia. That does not improve linux. If you want to improve linux, patch a few opensource programs or something - THAT will be useful. The creator of linux himself said that thinking that linux is anti-microsoft is silly.
Man, I agree with the FSF, RedHat, and some others, you really think this is paranoia??? we can wait until 2015 to see who was right, but signing a petition in 2011 seems like a way to be heard before it's too late.
How do you know if I participate in the community or not???
What makes you think I believe Linux is anti-microsoft??? I just think the Linux community should not get locked out of future PC hardware.
Plus the subject of this thread is the opposite: "Microsoft trying to prevent you installing Linux". And by the way I don't believe that either, I just don't like the negative side effect on Linux that their security thing will have.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
Just do not have to spend a grand to get the rock. 
