LinuxQuestions.org
View the Most Wanted LQ Wiki articles.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 02-12-2013, 03:21 PM   #31
T3slider
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Distribution: Slackware64-14.1
Posts: 2,268

Rep: Reputation: 652Reputation: 652Reputation: 652Reputation: 652Reputation: 652Reputation: 652

I believe it is just signed by Microsoft and not written by them. I could be wrong though.
 
Old 02-12-2013, 04:29 PM   #32
rkelsen
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: slackware
Posts: 1,771

Rep: Reputation: 205Reputation: 205Reputation: 205
Yes, but still, we shouldn't be supporting it.

We should be fighting it.
 
Old 02-12-2013, 04:46 PM   #33
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Midwest USA, Central Illinois
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 11,293
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448
Member Response

Hi,
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post
Yes, but still, we shouldn't be supporting it.

We should be fighting it.
Why???
 
Old 02-12-2013, 04:55 PM   #34
rkelsen
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: slackware
Posts: 1,771

Rep: Reputation: 205Reputation: 205Reputation: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by onebuck View Post
Hi,

Why???
So you like the fact that Microsoft controls the keys to your hardware???

I have nothing against UEFI. In fact, I prefer the flexibility of it over the old way of doing things. The problem is with "secure boot".

We should be fighting "secure boot" because it is thinly veiled fascism.

Last edited by rkelsen; 02-12-2013 at 04:58 PM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-12-2013, 05:10 PM   #35
astrogeek
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2008
Distribution: Slackware: 12.1, 13.1, 14.1, 64-14.1, -current, FreeBSD-10
Posts: 1,957

Rep: Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744
Quote:
Originally Posted by onebuck View Post
Hi,
Why???
Because the still incomplete gains of free thought and free knowledge, including that aspect which we call free software, are far too precious to simply willy-nilly surrender the keys of the kingdom back to the original gatekeeper!

I for one will not even consider it!
 
Old 02-12-2013, 05:25 PM   #36
astrogeek
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2008
Distribution: Slackware: 12.1, 13.1, 14.1, 64-14.1, -current, FreeBSD-10
Posts: 1,957

Rep: Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post
So you like the fact that Microsoft controls the keys to your hardware???

I have nothing against UEFI. In fact, I prefer the flexibility of it over the old way of doing things. The problem is with "secure boot".

We should be fighting "secure boot" because it is thinly veiled fascism.
I agree.

You asked in an earlier post IIRC, "How have we come to this?".

"We" have not come to this - this was handed to us by the same malevolent corporate interests that some of us have fought so hard to escape for the past 30+ years!

We must recognize it for what it is quickly or we won't be able to have this conversation in the near future!
 
Old 02-12-2013, 05:29 PM   #37
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Midwest USA, Central Illinois
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 11,293
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448
Member Response

Hi,
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkelsen View Post
So you like the fact that Microsoft controls the keys to your hardware???

I have nothing against UEFI. In fact, I prefer the flexibility of it over the old way of doing things. The problem is with "secure boot".

We should be fighting "secure boot" because it is thinly veiled fascism.
Microsoft does not control my present hardware in any way. 'Secure Boot' protocol(subset) is a implementation of the 'UEFI' protocol.

Do not buy any hardware that you feel does not meet your needs or requirements. You are not required to purchase a piece of hardware with Win/8 or for that fact any hardware that goes against your belief. Research before you buy. I do agree that 'UEFI' is necessary for future hardware needs since 'BIOS' has been hacked or patched to service the newer hardware for far too long. It is about time something like 'UEFI' is implemented. As to Win/8 logo hardware 'secure boot', you should be able to change/disable 'secure boot' then choose legacy BIOS and do a install without it.

This vehement attitude against Microsoft is old and childish. Microsoft answers to investors and must turn a profit. I agree Microsoft has made some poor venture choices and actions against other companies. Apple has locked the OS, Jobs was a dirty player yet he is put up on a pedestal. People forget the problems between Jobs and Gates over the user interface; mouse to be exact.

No one forces anyone to buy a 'Secure Boot' machine!
 
Old 02-12-2013, 05:39 PM   #38
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Midwest USA, Central Illinois
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 11,293
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448
Member Response

Hi,
Quote:
Originally Posted by astrogeek View Post
Because the still incomplete gains of free thought and free knowledge, including that aspect which we call free software, are far too precious to simply willy-nilly surrender the keys of the kingdom back to the original gatekeeper!

I for one will not even consider it!
Fine with me! Your choice. Microsoft happens to be a successful corporation.

No one is asking anyone to surrender anything. You are relating open source to a capitalistic venture. Free enterprise to me is just as important as your;
Quote:
still incomplete gains of free thought and free knowledge, including that aspect which we call free software, are far too precious to simply willy-nilly surrender the keys of the kingdom back to the original gatekeeper!
Microsoft, IBM and loads of other big companies do support 'UEFI. Microsoft happens to implement 'Secure Boot' and everyone goes as you say 'willy-nilly'. To me that's really smart for Microsoft wanting to 'Secure boot' hardware to protect the whole system, not just part. Will I buy a Win/8 logo hardware? Probably. Will I run Win/8? No, I prefer to work at all levels of my OS. Will I be able to run in that fashion? Yes, I will be sure to select hardware that will allow me too before I make any purchase.
 
Old 02-12-2013, 05:44 PM   #39
rkelsen
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: slackware
Posts: 1,771

Rep: Reputation: 205Reputation: 205Reputation: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by onebuck View Post
As to Win/8 logo hardware 'secure boot', you should be able to change/disable 'secure boot' then choose legacy BIOS and do a install without it.
Yes. Should be able to.

For someone from the US, you certainly seem to be complacent in losing your freedom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onebuck View Post
This vehement attitude against Microsoft is old and childish.
It's not against Microsoft alone. It's against anyone and anything that supports "secure boot".
Quote:
Originally Posted by onebuck View Post
No one forces anyone to buy a 'Secure Boot' machine!
If we don't fight it now, we may not have a choice in the near future.
 
Old 02-12-2013, 05:47 PM   #40
volkerdi
Slackware Maintainer
 
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Minnesota
Distribution: Slackware! :-)
Posts: 875

Rep: Reputation: 1817Reputation: 1817Reputation: 1817Reputation: 1817Reputation: 1817Reputation: 1817Reputation: 1817Reputation: 1817Reputation: 1817Reputation: 1817Reputation: 1817
Quote:
Originally Posted by onebuck View Post
Microsoft happens to implement 'Secure Boot' and everyone goes as you say 'willy-nilly'. To me that's really smart for Microsoft wanting to 'Secure boot' hardware to protect the whole system, not just part.
With Secure Boot, system compromises will occur when holes are found in signed binaries.
Before Secure Boot, system compromises occurred when holes were found in unsigned binaries.

I'm not yet convinced that the security situation has improved. It's great for marketing, though.
 
4 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-12-2013, 05:53 PM   #41
rkelsen
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: slackware
Posts: 1,771

Rep: Reputation: 205Reputation: 205Reputation: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by onebuck View Post
Will I buy a Win/8 logo hardware? Probably. Will I run Win/8? No, I prefer to work at all levels of my OS. Will I be able to run in that fashion? Yes, I will be sure to select hardware that will allow me too before I make any purchase.
Given that Microsoft require the hardware vendors to implement "secure boot" in order to be Win8 certified, I think you will struggle to find hardware that operates in the manner you want.
 
Old 02-12-2013, 08:14 PM   #42
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Midwest USA, Central Illinois
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 11,293
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448
Member Response

Hi,

Whenever you wish to certify Win/8 the means to disable secure boot must be allowed for the certification process.

I am not giving up any freedoms nor complacent by choosing to allow free enterprise and markets to work. Where there are needs there will be suppliers for the populace.

'Anti-whatever' is getting old to me and to bias the situation with FUD just creates more biased FUD. Get the facts: Secure boot or UEFI Home

Market will decide whether to support 'UEFI' protocol with subset 'Secure Boot'. As to the set: 'Secure boot' protocol from Microsoft that too will be decided by the market. Not by people who shout about conspiracies! You are free to make a choice or not!
 
Old 02-12-2013, 08:21 PM   #43
T3slider
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Distribution: Slackware64-14.1
Posts: 2,268

Rep: Reputation: 652Reputation: 652Reputation: 652Reputation: 652Reputation: 652Reputation: 652
I enjoyed this thread more when it was about Slackware and UEFI in practice rather than another political debate.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-12-2013, 08:26 PM   #44
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Midwest USA, Central Illinois
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 11,293
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448Reputation: 1448
Member Response

Hi,
Quote:
Originally Posted by volkerdi View Post
With Secure Boot, system compromises will occur when holes are found in signed binaries.
Before Secure Boot, system compromises occurred when holes were found in unsigned binaries.

I'm not yet convinced that the security situation has improved. It's great for marketing, though.
I really think 'UEFI' is long over due. Either rewrite BIOS or use something along the lines of 'UEFI' to provide the means to secure the system and provide the means to implement new hardware designs.

I totally agree with the latter since from day one someone has always found a work around to get into a system. Everything is dependent on marketing.
 
Old 02-12-2013, 08:32 PM   #45
rkelsen
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: slackware
Posts: 1,771

Rep: Reputation: 205Reputation: 205Reputation: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by T3slider View Post
I enjoyed this thread more when it was about Slackware and UEFI in practice rather than another political debate.
There's not much more to discuss about it. ELILO solves the problem quickly and easily, and was recently added to Slackware-current.

The thread had nowhere else to go...
 
  


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
Slackware and Grub2 - getting a UEFI mb running linuxbird Slackware 16 12-13-2012 08:40 AM
Slackware on a former UEFI system garpu Slackware - Installation 2 11-23-2012 10:59 PM
Slackware vs. EFI/UEFI kikinovak Slackware 4 10-21-2012 11:31 AM
Help Creating UEFI A MENU For My Bootable (BIOS/UEFI) CDROM ssenuta Linux - Hardware 0 08-27-2012 09:11 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:06 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