Linus shoots from the hip, and calls a spade a spade...
SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
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.
Linus shoots from the hip, and calls a spade a spade...
Not strictly a Slackware matter, but I wanted to share this in my own group of gearheads and not the naive masses.
It looks like mACROsFOT is getting a little desperate again. Their standard M.O. of "Extend, Embrace, Exterminate" is, um... lol.
Well, it looks like the boiz over at Redhat are at it again, suckin' up to Redmond. But Linus gave them a good admonishing a couple of days ago for it - You go girl!
And hence the reason why the whole UEFI crap is...crap and a Microshit attempt at control of *everything*, again. The *only* time anything 'Microshaft' should be trusted, is when it's not within 300 frigging miles of whatever it is one is working on. Kick their sellout asses Linus!
Macroshaft loves trying to bone Linux any chance it gets.
I wish Linus would yank Linux away from Red Hat and forbid them to release, work on, or contribute anything to Linux anymore. I won't bring up why, again, but it involves a certain "developer" who shall be known as "He Who Shall Not Be Named".
Red Hat is evil... and I wouldn't be surprised if they've been in bed getting it on dirty and funky with Gates and Balmer before.
Well, the thing is if Microsoft is the key holder for Secure Boot, then they hold all the keys to the kingdom. They are the gatekeepers, and they say who is who, what is what, and this is that.
Well, the thing is if Microsoft is the key holder for Secure Boot, then they hold all the keys to the kingdom. They are the gatekeepers, and they say who is who, what is what, and this is that.
Do mother boards give you the option to disable secure boot? If they do, then why does anyone care?
Any motherboard/x86(_64) machine that is Windows 8 Logo certified must have the abilities to disable Secure Boot and to enable the user to add and remove keys at his own will, so Microsoft is far from being the gatekeeper.
Do mother boards give you the option to disable secure boot? If they do, then why does anyone care?
Well, here's something to consider. So far, I've only heard about being able to turn Secure Boot on or off. There's no way to set it to on for this OS, and off for another. Windows 8 will work without Secure Boot, but what about Windows 9? Most of the people I've known who have gotten into Linux (including myself) started on a machine where they dual booted it with Windows. I still know many people who don't personally care for Windows, but still have to keep it around because of work, hardware that isn't supported on Linux, or for other reasons. If a future version of Windows refuses to work with secure boot deactivated, that's a pretty big hurdle for a new user who isn't willing to switch entirely away from Windows. And it seems like the technical hurdles for supporting Secure Boot on Linux are much larger for the new user unless we accept Microsoft as the sole key authority, since their key is the only one shipping in firmware.
I can't see how Secure Boot doesn't either result in less Linux adoption, or giving a lot more control over Linux to Microsoft... that's why I care.
Any motherboard/x86(_64) machine that is Windows 8 Logo certified must have the abilities to disable Secure Boot and to enable the user to add and remove keys at his own will, so Microsoft is far from being the gatekeeper.
Indeed. If a motherboard "BIOS" does not have the ability to disable Secure Boot and add/remove keys then the people to complain to (loudly and long) is the motherboard manufacturers.
While this whole debacle may have been precipitated by Microsoft, they are not the only contributory player here.
I still know many people who don't personally care for Windows, but still have to keep it around because of work, hardware that isn't supported on Linux, or for other reasons.
i am one of those
"HR Block Tax Cut "
it is wrote in MS visual studio and calls IE by name
the move to ie7 killed it for a bit seeing as ie7 was also windows explorer7 .
and a few "dumb" games that are directX
personally i would love to see MS have to get singed keys from
RedHat
Debian
Slackware
FreeBSD
-- and so on
to get windows 7,8,9,???? to run
Well, here's something to consider. So far, I've only heard about being able to turn Secure Boot on or off. There's no way to set it to on for this OS, and off for another. Windows 8 will work without Secure Boot, but what about Windows 9? Most of the people I've known who have gotten into Linux (including myself) started on a machine where they dual booted it with Windows. I still know many people who don't personally care for Windows, but still have to keep it around because of work, hardware that isn't supported on Linux, or for other reasons. If a future version of Windows refuses to work with secure boot deactivated, that's a pretty big hurdle for a new user who isn't willing to switch entirely away from Windows. And it seems like the technical hurdles for supporting Secure Boot on Linux are much larger for the new user unless we accept Microsoft as the sole key authority, since their key is the only one shipping in firmware.
I can't see how Secure Boot doesn't either result in less Linux adoption, or giving a lot more control over Linux to Microsoft... that's why I care.
Well, it's probably going to move to the same way CA's work for https where you have a hand full of companies issuing out CA's for web sites, but instead its for keys to be able to boot an OS. There will be the proprietary companies (e.g. Microsoft and Apple) and then Open Source companies (e.g. Red Hat and Shuttleworth's company). It'll just be sad if we have to pay for these keys by either buying the OS and a key comes with it, or the owner of the OS has to buy a key and distribute it with the OS if the OS is free, such as with Slackware.
Technology is probably going to progress to the point where we'll have to authenticate with our DNA from touching the power button before we can boot our computers...
Last edited by bassplayer69; 02-26-2013 at 06:28 PM.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.