LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General
User Name
Password
Linux - General This Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.

Notices


Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 03-01-2013, 09:35 AM   #1
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Midwest USA, Central Illinois
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 11,707
Blog Entries: 10

Rep: Reputation: 1601Reputation: 1601Reputation: 1601Reputation: 1601Reputation: 1601Reputation: 1601Reputation: 1601Reputation: 1601Reputation: 1601Reputation: 1601Reputation: 1601
Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position


Hi,

Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position:
Quote:
Summary: The fuss over how to handle Windows 8 PC's Secure Boot keys in desktop Linux continues and Linus Torvalds spells out how he wants to see it handled.

No one, but no one, in the Linux community likes Microsoft's mandated deployment of the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) Secure Boot option in Windows 8 certified PCs. But, how Linux should handle the fixes required to deal with this problem remains a hot-button issue. Now, as the debate continues hot and heavy, Linus Torvalds, Linux's founder and de facto leader, spells out how he thinks Linux should deal with Secure Boot keys.
Torvalds was mad as hell with proposals to place Secure Boot keys and their management into the Linux kernel itself. Torvalds called the idea "moronic."
That said, there still needs to be some way to deal with the necessary evil of Secure Boot key management. Or, does there?
Part of the concern driving the desire to manage Secure Boot at a low-level in Linux is that a Microsoft-signed, Linux Secure Boot key might be used to hack systems. If that were to happen, some developers fear that Microsoft would disable the key. This would have the effect of disabling Linux PCs using that Secure Boot key. And, no one wants that.
 
Old 03-01-2013, 10:03 AM   #2
jens
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Debian, Slackware, Fedora
Posts: 1,252

Rep: Reputation: 182Reputation: 182
This is no more than a personal vendetta between an unskilled blogger (Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols) and Matthew Garrett.

Utterly pointless.

Do read his "friendly" remarks on Matthew's blog as well:
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/23400.ht...6616#cmt896616

Edit:
... especially this reply from Greg K-H:

Quote:
I have no idea how you ever got that idea, but for the record, I, Greg Kroah-Hartman, do NOT have a low opinion of Matthew's technical skills at all. And I really doubt that Ted or Linus do either.

We are merely disagreeing about how something should be implemented, or in my case, how "far" we need to take the "secure" kernel options.

That does not mean I think less of Matthew at all, in any way, shape or form. I have only the highest regard for him, and consider him a friend. He is a valuable asset to Linux and he has done wonderful work for the kernel, and for Linux overall for a very long time.

Sam, if you ever have a question about what my opinion is, please ask before ever writing something that can turn out (like now) to be so totally wrong.
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/23400.ht...1992#cmt901992

Last edited by jens; 03-01-2013 at 10:49 AM.
 
Old 03-01-2013, 11:34 AM   #3
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Midwest USA, Central Illinois
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 11,707
Blog Entries: 10

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1601Reputation: 1601Reputation: 1601Reputation: 1601Reputation: 1601Reputation: 1601Reputation: 1601Reputation: 1601Reputation: 1601Reputation: 1601Reputation: 1601
Member Response

Hi,

I really find the article and links within informational for a user to make their decision. As to the state between Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols and Matthew Garrett, we all have different opinions and positions with this topic.

I am providing the linked article(s) for users to read and decide on their own position. Well informed users will not be bluffed or fall for FUD.
 
Old 03-02-2013, 09:38 AM   #4
jens
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Debian, Slackware, Fedora
Posts: 1,252

Rep: Reputation: 182Reputation: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by onebuck View Post
Hi,

I really find the article and links within informational for a user to make their decision. As to the state between Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols and Matthew Garrett, we all have different opinions and positions with this topic.

I am providing the linked article(s) for users to read and decide on their own position. Well informed users will not be bluffed or fall for FUD.
Oops ... it seems that I've mixed-up Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols with Sam Varghese (again!).
(Apologies to Steven if he ever reads this)

Both make the same mistake though.

You can't just cherry-pick parts from a much wider discussion to prove your own (uninformed and wrong) facts.

It's exactly these kind of uninformed articles what causes moronic FUD posts like the ones from Sam (internet-bully) Varghese:
http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-an...ke-distro-keys

Last edited by jens; 03-02-2013 at 09:43 AM.
 
Old 03-05-2013, 11:12 PM   #5
Ztcoracat
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Distribution: Slackware & CentOS
Posts: 3,761
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
This whole thing seems like war to me but that is just my take on it.

I can't remember which article that I read on the ZDnet website but Linus specifically said:
Quote:
"Signed binary modules are not going to be in the Linux kernel"
And until yesterday; I didn't know that Garrett used to work for Red Hat-

BTW, the folks at Ubuntu are not happy about this Win's 8 Secure Boot issue either-

Where do you think this is really going?
And if you don't mind me asking:
Onebuck and Jens:

Is this about power and control or something much bigger like maybe a lawsuit?

Is it just me or has this whole thing really gotten over the top? # ! - ?
 
  


Reply

Tags
secure boot, uefi booting, win8


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 On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 02-28-2013 07:11 AM
LXer: Torvalds blasts Howells, Garrett over secure boot LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 02-27-2013 07:50 AM
LXer: News: Linux Top 3: Linux 3.8, Ubuntu for Tablets and Torvalds NSFW Secure Boot LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 02-26-2013 01:20 PM
LXer: Torvalds strongly objects to Windows 8 secure boot keys in the Linux kernel LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 02-26-2013 12:31 PM
LXer: Red Hat Clarifies Doubts Over UEFI Secure Boot Solution LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 06-06-2012 06:42 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:21 AM.

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
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration