Linus Torvalds in NSFW Red Hat rant
 

Linus Torvalds in NSFW Red Hat rant

X.509 dispute turns XXX as Torvalds says Red Hat wants kinky fun with Redmond

from: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02...torvalds_rant/

Here is the original thread:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/21/196

The issues seem to involve Microsoft signing Red Hat kernel modules for the purposes of UEFI...

Interesting read, I tend to agree that we shouldn't be going out of our way to suck up to MS but I see no need to discuss it in that manner.

I wonder how long he'd last on LQ before he was banned? I was banned once for using a very mild insult.

Yeah, he would last maybe an hour. j/k

I'm just glad he speaks his mind. I couldn't think of a better leader for such a project.

I don't think that this kind of language should be censored, but it should be used with a bit of tact. He does that, so I think it's good. Now, if he does this in everything he says, that's different, but he doesn't do that.

I don't think there is any excuse for it myself. A person asked a question and he went off his rocker, if being polite to someone is censorship then there is a problem. Sure speak your mind, I certainly do, but at least keep your composure when doing so.

Linus is actually known for going off on rants
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02...torvalds_rant/
http://readwrite.com/2012/06/18/linu...-hardware-woes
https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorval...ts/1vyfmNCYpi5
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTAyNDA
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.v...43/focus=57918

These are just a selection, quite frankly if he can't say something without getting personal then he has a bit of a problem. Yes he has done a great job with the kernel but nothing gives him the right to treat people the way he does.

while i have my mixed feelings about what MS has done with secure boot, IMHO its a blatant rip off of the customer as MS is trying to claim ownership of peoples HARDWARE, but I am glad for organizations like RedHat and others who are making it easy for those of us who wish to NOT use MS and their illegal stealing of the ownership of our hardware to do so.

With it's monopoly power, Microsoft forces machine makers to have Secure UEFI in the BIOS for Windows 8.

And they force all open source vendors to get a Microsoft signature in order to boot under Secure UEFI.

(Microsoft is so good at handling signatures...)

This change makes it harder to "dual" boot Linux/BSD/etc with Secure UEFI turned on.

Users are already bricking brand new laptops when trying to boot Linux:

http://www.h-online.com/open/news/it...s-1793958.html

http://www.pcworld.com/article/20278...ptops-too.html

This is one more reason for new users to stay away from Linux/BSD/etc.

Linux should never have to depend on Microsoft in order to boot up a system.

This is bad for Linux.

(If I owned one of those laptops I would be swearing more than Linus Torvalds right now...)

LOL, Linus is hilarious with his rants. I give him props for having balls and speaking out when someone pisses him off. People can disagree with me all they want, but if you don't want people to step on you, sometimes you have to be a jackass.

I agree... Linus created Linux, not Red Hat. Red Hat just wants to overexert themselves and just become another Microsoft and control everything. It's about time someone put them in their place and show them for what they really are.

The problem is bigger and goes a lot deeper than you think, (Linus T. is probably frustrated, and it is probably an effect of the problem).
Now i would like to point this issue: "their illegal stealing of the ownership of our hardware" , now if you think it is a new thing, add to it SOPA, PIPA, etc, etc, they are building fences with spikes, but who?
If you want to know what is all this about, and other things that goes against our freedom read this:
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBr...ith_Rothschild
I will rephrase what lleb said: "their illegal stealing of the ownership of our lifes" , do you really think you are free?
"None are more enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Goethe
Just don't buy that kind of hardware. We do have other choices yes? Well if not then we are enslaved already. If so read more:
http://www.iamthewitness.com

Regards

Please, people, before ranting get your facts straight. Microsoft is not stealing your hardware, in fact any x86(_64) hardware that is Windows 8 Logo certified must have the options to disable Secure Boot and to add and remove keys to the databases at the user's will, so they are actively enabling the owner of the hardware to have total control.

It is that simple: You have a problem with Secure Boot or just don't have a need for it? Then just disable it, you have that possibility if you look out that you are buying Window 8 Logo certified hardware, but you may lack that possibility if you don't.

you are correct to a point, but unless you are far more skilled then i dare say 95% of the posters in this forum and around the world you will not be able to generate your own key to get past secure boot.

this is exactly what MS has been attempting since the beta release of winXP when MS tried to create a LEASE for the OS instead of a license. it is the same jacked up mess.

no different then what MS is doing with its Office suite. all new MS Office effective this year will be tied to one hardware install and is NOT transferable to other hardware ever. this includes upgrades to that computer. so buy a PC put MS Office on it, 6mo-2yr later you have to replace the video card or the mother board for what ever reason, your license for MS Office is null and void.

Bad things happen when major corps. take it upon themselves to remove your rights to CHOOSE what you want to do with the hardware you purchased. Again the day MS starts paying for my hardware is the day I will allow them to tell me what I can and can not do with my hardware.

Then just disable it, shouldn't be harder than changing the boot order or something similar.

We are the customers. Don't agree with their licensing? Don't buy it. Vote with your feet. Support LibreOffice/OpenOffice/whatever with getting better support for Office Open XML (aka ECMA-376, ISO/IEC 29500, docx) formats (or the respective formats Excel, PowerPoint and whatnot use), so that Microsoft's Office can be replaced with open solutions. I would bet 99% of home users don't need the advanced features of Microsoft Office anyways and would be fine with the open counterparts.

If you don't trust them don't purchase a license for their software. If you don't trust their license habits, why would you trust their software?

while I as an individual do not trust them, nor do I invest in their Licenses, sadly that is not the case in the real world. MS still accounts for the vast majority of computers in the world. If you wish to make money in Computers you MUST deal with MS. Like it or not. the pure Linux jobs are far and few between and are primarily reserved for folks who have been doing it for years. the rest of us well we are stuck being forced, yes forced, to deal with MS by no choice of our own.

not only can you cast your vote so to speak with your own money, but you can also help spread the word. the more people who learn the truth about MS and their actions will help to open their eyes and minds to other options.

Agreed. Sadly, the loudest people in the open source (and especially Linux) community are those that try to spread the word are those with a "Microsucks is Evil !!!!1111!!! Winblows must die111 !!!!!!" mindset, repeating things they have read on FUD spreading blogs, not those people that inform themselves and can argue their opinions based on facts.
IMHO, those people are more harmful than doing good for the case, but I think there is not much we can do about that, besides maybe explaining factual errors in their arguments and pointing out the real facts. Only problem here is that those people usually are resistant to learn the facts and sometimes begin to outright lie and calling reasonable people "Microsoft moles" or "Traitors" when they are proven to be wrong by those people.
Luckily, this rarely happens on LQ, but just have a look at the well known Linux forum with a name beginning with a P and you can see what I mean.

Except for ARM phones, of course, where you can't disable it. So, it's NOT that simple. The trend it clear. They will eventually lock out x86 as well. Or maybe x86 will just disappear and you'll be surprised to find yourself locked-in.

And why exactly must x86/amd64 hardware have the option to disable Secure Boot?

ARM hardware for Windows 8 must have Secure Boot and there is no way of disabling it.

Who makes these rules?

Another thing to consider is the fact that M$ originally planned to lock in x86 as well, but Intel and AMD wouldn't have it. Instead of saying it will never happen, I would consider ourselves lucky to have companies that still stand up against this evil. How much longer tho ?

The trend is clear, Apple is trying to take over the desktop with vendor lock in, they have already started with locking their ARM phones and tablets. In the ARM space almost everybody does it, but people complain only about Microsoft doing it on their ARM machines with about what, 2% market share?

Because it is made mandatory by the Windows 8 Logo certification program for x86(_64).
Because it is made mandatory by the Windows 8 Logo certification program for ARM that Secure Boot must not be disabled .
It is the Windows 8 Logo certification. Who do you think makes those rules?

That sounds interesting, do you have a link for me?

There was an article posted at the time the requirements were being discussed. I don't know if I can find the exact one.

Here is something similar:
http://news.techeye.net/software/mic...er-secure-boot

This is about ARM and does not mention at all that Intel or AMD have prevented Microsoft from doing the same on x86(_64).

MS will have rendered us ARMless.

Okay enough of the theoretical discussion here.

Here is a Fellow in the Slackware forum with a brand new Samsung laptop loaded with Windows 8

He wants to dual boot Slackware alongside Windows 8.

What do you tell him to complete this installation successfully?

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ty-4175452162/

I would recommend that he boot and use kernel 3.7.10 or later as it has the Samsung patches for not bricking the box.

But what else does he need to know/do?

You can brick a Samsung laptop from Window$ too. It's not a Linux issue.

Is it bad? Or could it be good? If the option of dual-booting is removed, those who truly want to use Linux or BSD may have more incentive to switch, instead of clinging to the comfort of Windows, while also using (or should I say testing) Linux. So it can be argued that not being able to dual-boot could harm Linux, and it can also be argued that it could help. Who is right?

Blog post from Matthew Garrett on this issue:

http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/23400.html

Here is another possible solution.

Older systems without secure boot allow for the installation of Windows 8.

So why not simply turn off secure boot in the BIOS?

Does this work for dual booting?

(But Before doing anything, be sure to create system backup DVDs to be able to re-install the Windows operating system if it is clobbered...)

http://maketecheasier.com/disable-se...s-8/2013/02/25

Sure.
You either run everything in a Secure Boot environment or nothing at all.

Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position

is the title of this article from ZDNet last Wednesday:

http://www.zdnet.com/torvalds-clarif...on-7000011918/

Quite literally. I will never buy anything which has been locked down.

I am thankful that my new laptop doesn't have "secure boot"... although this was more luck than skill, since I didn't do that much research before buying it. Four weeks ago I didn't even know that "secure boot" existed.

Next time, though, I will be doing my homework throroughly to ensure that whatever I buy doesn't have "secure boot" or anything remotely resembling it. I don't care if this "feature" can be disabled or not. I'm not buying it.

That is the power of freedom, don't let those control freaks take it alway from you.

Regards

Torvalds was not born in the grave like the rest of us
 

Some people only relate to obscenities so they have to be used to have a discussion with them. I don't think as a whole that a lot of people mature past the goals of their genitalia anyways so it's the language you must use. I have no doubt that the people Torvalds has to deal with are accurately described as @$#*%ed in the head. I don't see why Torvalds should have to go along with the Dog and Pony Shows that the majority of us have to toe the line with to keep our lousy rolls in society.


It looks like Linux users are going to have to get better at hardware hacks in the future or gain some leverage somehow.


BTW I just started using Midori and have found in quite good. Everyone should install it.:hattip:

The reason for why Linus Torvalds will always piss off Brits and Americans is that he is a viking. His sometimes barbarian behavior is because of the viking blood in him.

I think a brief history lesson is appropriate to understand why this cannot be helped and why you can't demand civility of him. Back in the good old days, when we weren't busy dressing in blood-soaked wolf furs and going on rampages (at least until king Harald banned that activity, after uniting Norway), we were raiding your lands and burning down your churches. Merely mentioning the Norsemen was enough to make you tremble in fear, as evident by this prayer from the 9th century to ward against Norsemen:
A few centuries ago Finland was part of Sweden, and was called Österland ("Eastern land"). It's called something else today but it's the same ancestry.

You see. It's in his blood. And we can see in the same statement that his intentions are good.

My lady suggested to me, that if we get another child and it's a boy, we should name him Linus. I said fine, but only if we tell everyone that he is named after the great Linus Torvalds. And we agreed to that.

But the viking is not merely offensive and rude. He is a witty genius who says things exactly like they are, without wrapping them in. His heart is pure and he uses his skills and knowledge to contribute to the world rather than to enrich himself. It doesn't matter what he says; he will always be the pride of Scandinavia because we vikings understand that it's not about what you say -- it's about what you do.

This is for you, Linus, if you ever read this:
Den Höges Sång

A valid opinion.
Although most people hold the equally valid opinion that those in positions of prominence have a greater responsibility to behave in a civilised manner, because it is difficult to appear professional, educated or cultured if one is flinging profanity around.

The problem with that assessment is the discussion being referred to "takes place on the Linux Kernel Mailing List." That means the Homo Erectus individuals Torvalds was interacting with are Linux users. (Us)

Nothing brings the ferris wheel at the Dog and Pony Show to a halt like a LT rant.



I don't think Torvalds vulgarity is because of his lack of a decent vocabulary or wanting to shock people into submission. There are situations that you will not compromise from if you don't have a price tag on your soul. I would bet that he feels insulted quite often. It's because of his personality that Linux exists. I doubt there are many children reading the Linux Kernel message boards to keep track of the direction it's development is going ,and getting a vocabulary lesson from a O.S developer.

Or more likely, it is indeed the objective.

That is completely irrelevant. Adults only need to communicate in a civilised manner when children are not around? We were obviously raised in different environments. In my previous post I referred to the image one projects with language.
The meaning is simply that freely using profanity will usually make a person appear uneducated, uncultured or obnoxious. Any single one or in various combinations. It is easy for a speaker or writer to loose support by using improper methods of expression, and reduce the impact of a good argument in the process. The higher one's status, the more important bearing and decorum are. If you do not believe me, walk into a business meeting and let the expletives flow. How well received do you think you would be? If one wants to be a leader, one must act like a leader. That applies to Linus Torvalds as equally as it applies to everyone else.

Really? I think you need a few not so brief history lessons. :)
Some vikings didn't have much luck on their rape & pillage tours:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridgewa...ing_burial_pit
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9035...rcenaries.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...s-enemies.html

A highly entertaining post I must say.

I suppose you would have gone extinct if you hadn't stopped turning the other cheek!

You see, we are hard as steel. Linus' hird is no different.

I will give the vikings credit for one thing: they were good at killing unarmed monks.
Swedish vikings mostly went east, to Russia. In the NW of England, if any of us have viking ancestry, it's Norwegian. Oldham == Alda's home.

Linus can say whatever he wants however he wants to. There is nothing that can be said that can appease every person and there is no reason to attempt doing so.

It is not professional to use profanity, so it does make you look unprofessional when you use it in the workplace.

If you think it makes one look uneducated by simply using profanity, you are the one who is uneducated. A well written point or counterpoint lacking fallacy compared to typical internet rhetoric is not sub par because it contains profanity.

I guess Mark Twain was uneducated if not.

Err... I guess that makes me a monkey who didn't mature past "the goals of their genitalia" because I'm "@$#*%ed in the head" as well.
No problem with that.

Just one question.
Could you post your code (that is obviously better and doesn't need Microsoft, even though the LF loader is using their evil key-base as well) to close this topic once and for all?

I'm out of ideas.

From reading Linus' thoughts on UEFI, I don't think he is against the "secure boot".

http://www.zdnet.com/torvalds-clarif...on-7000011918/

He just wants users to be able to sign their own modules and then put their own keys in the PC BIOS.

And he seems to not trust Microsoft to be the key authority.

But I don't know why... Doesn't Microsoft have a sterling reputation for handling keys?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02...r_happen_ever/