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 01-22-2012, 09:07 AM   #16
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Summer Midwest USA, Central Illinois, Winter Central Florida
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 13,655
Blog Entries: 36

Rep: Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844
Member response


Hi,
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
Knowing M$, their plan is to lock all devices. So far, Intel stopped them from locking out x86 machines.
Boycott any locked device, not just ones locked by M$.
Some ARM devices have been locked as mentioned and posted above in my previous post.

Microsoft business model has been successful to date. I do agree the company is locking ARM devices that use Microsoft. Not all ARM based devices are locked. Recently purchased some micro netbooks for experimentation that were MSCE based. These were worthless in my mind thus returned since the system hardware was not accessible(locked). MSCE was crippled from the start. I was curious and wanted to see if indeed the hardware was locked.

Intel was not the only company that is working with 'UEFI' protocol development. AMD is also a lead in the protocol work. 'UEFI' protocol development for multiple architectures will be useful for users, Software and manufactures(OEM). Not everyone should have open access to base hardware. People who do not know nor understand the functionality should never have full access. Some may not like the previous statement but it is true.

As to the call to boycott, your call not mine. Not every device needs user/owner access.
 
Old 01-22-2012, 09:22 AM   #17
H_TeXMeX_H
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292
Quote:
Originally Posted by onebuck View Post
Not everyone should have open access to base hardware. People who do not know nor understand the functionality should never have full access. Some may not like the previous statement but it is true.
That requires explanation.

I bought the hardware, why shouldn't I have access ?
 
Old 01-22-2012, 09:58 AM   #18
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Summer Midwest USA, Central Illinois, Winter Central Florida
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 13,655
Blog Entries: 36

Rep: Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844
Member response

Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
That requires explanation.

I bought the hardware, why shouldn't I have access ?
Statement stands for itself;
Quote:
Originally Posted by onebuck
Not everyone should have open access to base hardware. People who do not know nor understand the functionality should never have full access. Some may not like the previous statement but it is true.
My opinion and from experience(s) with inept(1) users. I hope this is clear enough.
 
Old 01-22-2012, 10:05 AM   #19
H_TeXMeX_H
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292
So, you mean you want to restrict people's ability to make mistakes ? Or what ?

During my entire interaction with computers and other things, I have made innumerable mistakes. I suppose I should be banned from using them, right ? The problem is that the only way I learned about how things work is by making mistakes and then learning from them.

I don't believe in inept users, only inexperienced ones.

P.S. The only potentially terminal damage a user can cause to a computer is to improperly flash the BIOS. I don't know of anything else that will stop the computer from functioning, other than physical abuse.

Oh, and that's what I was really hoping UEFI would solve. I was hoping that bricking would become a thing of the past ... too bad they didn't include this.

Last edited by H_TeXMeX_H; 01-22-2012 at 10:08 AM.
 
Old 01-22-2012, 10:31 AM   #20
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.2 & current
Posts: 7,914
Blog Entries: 59

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by onebuck View Post
Not everyone should have open access to base hardware. People who do not know nor understand the functionality should never have full access. Some may not like the previous statement but it is true.
That's only your opinion, and a very strange one to have for someone using GNU/Linux. This argument isn't about base hardware, it's about a person's right to install whatever software on whatever device's he or she owns. And whatever the architecture of those devices. Nothing/nobody stopped me from wiping off Windows XP from my laptop and netbook, and installing Linux. I would expect the right to do the same with any/all ARM based stuff I bought.
 
Old 01-22-2012, 12:48 PM   #21
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Summer Midwest USA, Central Illinois, Winter Central Florida
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 13,655
Blog Entries: 36

Rep: Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844
Member response

Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
That's only your opinion, and a very strange one to have for someone using GNU/Linux. This argument isn't about base hardware, it's about a person's right to install whatever software on whatever device's he or she owns. And whatever the architecture of those devices. Nothing/nobody stopped me from wiping off Windows XP from my laptop and netbook, and installing Linux. I would expect the right to do the same with any/all ARM based stuff I bought.
Brian you have your opinion and I have mine. What has my using Gnu/Linux got to do with this discussion?
Nothing!

It is childish/immature to state well if I bought it then I should be able to anything I wish. Sure you can do anything you wish. Just not the way you want. Just because a company wants to prevent problems for their user base by any means does not make it wrong.
OpenSource is great but it does not answer the needs for everyone.

As I stated earlier, it is your right to purchase but that does not guarantee that you will have the abilities to perform on same equipment just because you say it is your right. It is not your right if the Vendor or developer states otherwise. This whole issue is that Open Source users feel they can dictate to vendor(s) or manufacture(s). This Industry is not driven by OpenSource or even Gnu/Linux.

All of these are tools so purchase the tool that meets your needs or requirement(s). No arguments then!
So you were able to wipe Xp. Fine, if that was your wish or badge of honor. To me Xp is still usable when needed for my use. I can support who needs support on any of the Microsoft OS when a client needs support. As to your expectations to be able to put Arm on any device that you purchase. Good luck because there are devices out there that you cannot openly swap the OS. No matter how often or how loud everyone gets this will probably not change. There will be a lot of ARM choices to meet your needs. Just not the ones that Microsoft will design for OEM and release under contract. This whole issue will continue to be debated by more than just members here at LQ. But it will not drive Microsoft to make a change either voluntarily or legally.

I do dislike some of what has been done in the past by Microsoft. That does not mean I have to stop using Microsoft because of those actions or the ever hating Microsoft bashers. Their right to speak as they wish as long as no other rights are harmed. You can do a search here at LQ, my stance is the same and will remain that way. These are tools not religions.
 
Old 01-22-2012, 01:14 PM   #22
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Summer Midwest USA, Central Illinois, Winter Central Florida
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 13,655
Blog Entries: 36

Rep: Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844Reputation: 2844
Member response

Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
So, you mean you want to restrict people's ability to make mistakes ? Or what ?
That has nothing to do with this issue. If you wish that ability then get a SDK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
During my entire interaction with computers and other things, I have made innumerable mistakes. I suppose I should be banned from using them, right ?
Your use of already open hardware and attempts to stress this should should be for any future devices is just you being absurd or dictating a binding design rule. Won't happen!
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
The problem is that the only way I learned about how things work is by making mistakes and then learning from them.
Great but that does not mean every future design should be aligned by legacy designs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
I don't believe in inept users, only inexperienced ones.
Your right to look at a user in this way. Past experiences say otherwise to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
P.S. The only potentially terminal damage a user can cause to a computer is to improperly flash the BIOS. I don't know of anything else that will stop the computer from functioning, other than physical abuse.
Huh! Bricking is not the only damage a user can do to a piece of hardware. I will agree that physical damage is a big one for PC hardware. Some clients in the past attempted to upgrade. Misuse/abuse to that machine made a lot money for me. Inept! I could go get my client system logs and provide more but the general coverage for damage was due to the ineptness of the client. Poor handling techniques and just out right not having the knowledge to perform the actions. I really do not want to get into the software examples because those are extensively done by inept users. 'H' maybe you should look at the definition that I provided before for inept(1) users. Then possibly we can somewhat agree where each of are basing opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
Oh, and that's what I was really hoping UEFI would solve. I was hoping that bricking would become a thing of the past ... too bad they didn't include this.
Guess what;
Quote:
excerpt from HP;
This package provides the HP BIOS Update Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) for the supported notebook models and operating systems. HP BIOS Update UEFI provides support for safe and secure BIOS updates from HP.
Maybe you should do a little research to help understand what you are attempting to preach against. I chose HP since the company is a member for the 'UEFI' protocol. There are many other Vendors/OEM that provide these utilities.

HTH!
 
Old 01-22-2012, 02:00 PM   #23
H_TeXMeX_H
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292Reputation: 1292
From the look of it, your opinion and my opinion ... and that's it.

From what I've read on UEFI I don't see any indication that it is safer to update it than a regular BIOS. I hope they prove me wrong, because I'm sick of flashing BIOSes.

I'm gonna unsubscribe from General, because it just isn't entertaining. In fact it is very boring and dull and useless.
 
Old 01-22-2012, 03:18 PM   #24
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.2 & current
Posts: 7,914
Blog Entries: 59

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by onebuck View Post
What has my using Gnu/Linux got to do with this discussion?
Nothing!
I should have thought that was obvious. Microsoft locking hardware goes against these principles. In particular, this:
Quote:
The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose
Quote:
Originally Posted by onebuck View Post
It is childish/immature to state well if I bought it then I should be able to anything I wish
Childish? Immature? What is immature about wanting control over the things you buy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by onebuck View Post
This Industry is not driven by OpenSource or even Gnu/Linux.
No, it isn't, unfortunately. It's driven by greedy would-be monopolies like Microsoft.

Last edited by brianL; 01-23-2012 at 05:44 AM. Reason: added relevant quote
 
Old 01-23-2012, 05:22 AM   #25
hughetorrance
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Location: London North West
Distribution: x86_64 Slack 13.37 current : +others
Posts: 459

Rep: Reputation: 59
The immutable truth in this matter is that, its part of an ongoing plot to knobble the internet and its users...none of this affects most of us because we are aware and will circumvent it one way or another...it does however affect the great unwashed because they will never know and even if they did they would just put up with it because they don,t know whats going on and in fact are really not even interested. Oh well !
 
Old 01-23-2012, 05:59 AM   #26
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,753

Rep: Reputation: 935Reputation: 935Reputation: 935Reputation: 935Reputation: 935Reputation: 935Reputation: 935Reputation: 935
Quote:
Originally Posted by onebuck View Post
As I said before do not purchase if it does not suit you. And my analogy with FORD is good from this perspective since you seem to want to force a company to not produce because of YOUR wish to produce a device and not lock it for personal uses instead of their needs to provide a secure device. FORD would not produce Chevy parts unless it was profitable. And it would not be profitable to remake a FORD into a Chevy.
False analogy.

Car manufacturers dont have any control over the use or modification of the cars they produce. GM Chevrolet cant tell you what roads you can or cannot drive down, who you carry, when/who/where/how much you sell the car for, or anything else. Even if driving a Corvette down rutted '4WD only' dirt track will kill the car (which goes well beyond ineptitude). You own the car, you can do whatever you want with it.

They also have no control over the way that parts are used. No, Chevy doesnt make Ford parts, but you are free to use them if you wish. BTW, just for example, I've heard of (and seen) people use chevy pistons, conrods and other internal parts in Fords/Mopars. Let alone the less technical parts, like GM holden rack and pinion steering which has been fitted (not stock, done by end users and shops) to more brands of car than I can even remember.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by onebuck View Post
Freedom goes for everyone. Freedom of choice, freedom to produce a device as they desire. Your freedom to ignore the device.
But not freedom from monopolistic practices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by onebuck View Post
Intel was not the only company that is working with 'UEFI' protocol development. AMD is also a lead in the protocol work.
No ARM holdings on the UEFI board of directors though.

I'd be interested to see what ARM holdings would say about all this, but there is just too much 'noise' to figure it out, if they have even made a public statement.
 
Old 01-23-2012, 10:53 AM   #27
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,078
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187
It's easy to get sidetracked by "the Evil Empire."

Fact is, there are many compelling reasons why one might need to ensure that a system is not surreptitiously booted from an unknown source. "The night operator of a data center cannot be, or at least should not be, completely trusted." You cannot (e.g. contractually) guarantee the integrity of your client's data if you cannot strongly assert that the software controls of that system won't be usurped by booting something else on the box.

Oddly enough, Microsoft is responding to customer demands to provide this ... and so is virtually every other vendor out there. Linux provides exactly the same capability, as does OS/X.

Basically: "if the RFP (Request For Proposals) from your $$$potential$$$client$$$ includes this stipulation, as a great many RFP's do, you must be able to satisfy that requirement in a credible way, or you cannot get the $$$huge$$$ business $$$pays_lots_of programmer_salaries$$$."

This is the way The Game Of Business is played. Play it, or get off the pot.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 01-23-2012 at 10:59 AM.
 
Old 01-23-2012, 03:12 PM   #28
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.2 & current
Posts: 7,914
Blog Entries: 59

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
All that talk about "night operator", "client's data", etc, is irrelevant to me. Messing about (best way to describe it) on my computers is a hobby for me. I'm not on the pot playing the game of business. And if I can buy an x86 device of whatever description that has Microsoft on it, and wipe that off and put Linux on, or dual-boot the two, then why should I be prevented from doing the same with ARM devices?
 
Old 01-23-2012, 11:10 PM   #29
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,078
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
All that talk about "night operator", "client's data", etc, is irrelevant to me. Messing about (best way to describe it) on my computers is a hobby for me. I'm not on the pot playing the game of business.
My (only) point is ... this feature was designed for situations in which, say, you know that the night-op is a very bored (of course) hobbyist, and you do not want that person "experimenting" on all those tasty servers.

Now, I do not argue that Microsoft has taken advantage of that feature in order to throw yet another roadblock in the way ...
 
Old 01-23-2012, 11:37 PM   #30
cascade9
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2011
Location: Brisneyland
Distribution: Debian, aptosid
Posts: 3,753

Rep: Reputation: 935Reputation: 935Reputation: 935Reputation: 935Reputation: 935Reputation: 935Reputation: 935Reputation: 935
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
Fact is, there are many compelling reasons why one might need to ensure that a system is not surreptitiously booted from an unknown source. "The night operator of a data center cannot be, or at least should not be, completely trusted." You cannot (e.g. contractually) guarantee the integrity of your client's data if you cannot strongly assert that the software controls of that system won't be usurped by booting something else on the box.
UEFI secure boot alone wont stop this situaton. There is no way to stop your hypothetical 'night operator' from booting up his copy of win8.....unless you've locked users out of UEFI with a password. Which was possible with the old fashioned BIOS as well.

In the end, given a competent (maybe smart) operator, physcial access = root access.
 
  


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
LXer: Microsoft Denies Locking out Linux Stories LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 09-26-2011 03:50 PM
LXer: VMware rains hardware deals on Microsoft's parade LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 02-26-2008 11:40 AM
Athlon locking up after hardware upgrade/Debian reinstall Storm16 Linux - Hardware 0 05-20-2006 09:43 PM
LXer: Microsoft study finds Linux to have no advantage on older hardware LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 01-09-2006 09:16 PM
Microsoft Hardware on Linux DarkHawke SUSE / openSUSE 1 10-19-2004 07:10 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:58 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
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
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration