LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 10-26-2011, 06:03 PM   #76
frieza
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Location: harvard, il
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.4,DD-WRT micro plus ssh,lfs-6.6,Fedora 15,Fedora 16
Posts: 3,096

Rep: Reputation: 369Reputation: 369Reputation: 369Reputation: 369

Quote:
Originally Posted by SigTerm View Post
Now, a trick question: why the hell would you want to run Linux on iPad?
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.
 
Old 10-26-2011, 06:20 PM   #77
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Midwest USA, Central Illinois
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 11,155
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 1408Reputation: 1408Reputation: 1408Reputation: 1408Reputation: 1408Reputation: 1408Reputation: 1408Reputation: 1408Reputation: 1408Reputation: 1408
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by frieza View Post
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.
 
Old 10-26-2011, 06:54 PM   #78
Dave_P
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Posts: 24

Rep: Reputation: 1
I didn't sign it. it's just FUDD from M$.

Besides, M$ would face many lawsuits if they tried to monopolize every new desktop to run only windows 8 and beyond.

I believe there will be an option to turn off secure boot. Just my gut feeling.

Last edited by Dave_P; 10-26-2011 at 07:06 PM.
 
Old 10-26-2011, 07:34 PM   #79
SigTerm
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 379

Rep: Reputation: 233Reputation: 233Reputation: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by frieza View Post
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 View Post
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.
 
Old 10-26-2011, 07:34 PM   #80
jens
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Debian, Slackware, Fedora
Posts: 1,193

Rep: Reputation: 159Reputation: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by onebuck View Post
Hi,

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?)

Last edited by jens; 10-26-2011 at 09:09 PM.
 
Old 10-26-2011, 09:09 PM   #81
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Midwest USA, Central Illinois
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 11,155
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 1408Reputation: 1408Reputation: 1408Reputation: 1408Reputation: 1408Reputation: 1408Reputation: 1408Reputation: 1408Reputation: 1408Reputation: 1408
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by jens View Post
Huh???
Is this supposed to be a reply?

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 View Post
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 View Post
*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 View Post
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-compatible personal computers, which is vulnerable to bootkit malware.[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.
I do suggest that 'UEFI Wiki' will hopefully be of some help to you. Look at Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology PDF BIOS protection Guidelines for in depth dry read/references.

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!
 
Old 10-28-2011, 10:36 AM   #82
jens
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Debian, Slackware, Fedora
Posts: 1,193

Rep: Reputation: 159Reputation: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by onebuck View Post
Hi,



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'.

More FUD & just plain wrong!So from the above definition your statements are contradictorily.
I do suggest that 'UEFI Wiki' will hopefully be of some help to you. Look at Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology PDF BIOS protection Guidelines for in depth dry read/references.

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.
http://mjg59.livejournal.com/139232.html

As stated before, I don't dislike the idea, I do dislike the implementation.
 
Old 10-28-2011, 12:57 PM   #83
rich_c
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Distribution: Mepis; Maemo; openSUSE
Posts: 384
Blog Entries: 74

Rep: Reputation: 81
I just found this on Slashdot: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publi...open-platforms

The Linux Foundation obviously think it's an important issue. They've seen fit to produce quite a detailed document on the subject.
 
Old 10-28-2011, 05:24 PM   #84
lupusarcanus
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 1,022
Blog Entries: 19

Rep: Reputation: 146Reputation: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by rich_c View Post
I just found this on Slashdot: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publi...open-platforms

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?
 
Old 10-28-2011, 06:34 PM   #85
Dave_P
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Posts: 24

Rep: Reputation: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by lupusarcanus View Post
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.

Last edited by Dave_P; 10-28-2011 at 06:35 PM.
 
Old 10-28-2011, 06:39 PM   #86
lupusarcanus
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 1,022
Blog Entries: 19

Rep: Reputation: 146Reputation: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_P View Post
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.
Did you read the .pdf from The Linux Foundation?
 
Old 10-28-2011, 06:43 PM   #87
SigTerm
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 379

Rep: Reputation: 233Reputation: 233Reputation: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_P View Post
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.
 
Old 10-28-2011, 10:27 PM   #88
linuxlover.chaitanya
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2008
Location: Nagpur, India
Distribution: Cent OS 5/6, Ubuntu Server 10.04
Posts: 4,627

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I see this thread this way now:

A dog running round around to catch its tail.
 
Old 10-29-2011, 01:59 AM   #89
rich_c
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Distribution: Mepis; Maemo; openSUSE
Posts: 384
Blog Entries: 74

Rep: Reputation: 81
Here's a couple more links:

http://blog.canonical.com/2011/10/28...pact-on-linux/

http://ozlabs.org/docs/uefi-secure-b...t-on-linux.pdf

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.
 
Old 10-31-2011, 08:13 AM   #90
16pide
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2010
Posts: 418

Rep: Reputation: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by SigTerm View Post
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 View Post
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.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Linux users, please sign this petition ricosecada Linux - Games 13 10-25-2009 03:48 PM
Sign the World of Warcraft on Linux petition! Gormless Linux - Games 46 06-30-2007 12:21 PM
Sign the Half-Life for Linux Petition Genesee General 19 11-14-2003 12:45 PM
SIGN Petition for Linux Counter Strike version. mossy Linux - Software 3 09-27-2003 05:59 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:43 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration