> Ensuring users can add keys and allowing multiboot and reasonably easy
> usage of livecds without disabling secureboot all together should be
> the current campaign.
And openbios installation. I wonder if Dell will only allow Dell
Windows?
--
___
Having looked again at the fsfs campaign.
We, the undersigned, urge all computer makers implementing UEFI's
so-called "Secure Boot" to do it in a way that allows free software
operating systems to be installed. To respect user freedom and truly
protect user security, manufacturers must either al
> I understand that given Microsoft's record in the past, some of you are
> worried, but when looking in the specifications (as Thomas already
> pointed out) it is quite clear that Microsoft wants to do the right
> thing here.
>
> Personally I couldn't come up with a better way/infrastructure than
And remember one day when the "Disable Secure Boot" button is not present.
Well we have right to not allow that too.
2012/6/26 Lars Madson
> Karol ... don't ever accept the unacceptable because it's shaped as the
> best proposition ever. Make your own. Microsoft should not ask people to
> pay an
Karol ... don't ever accept the unacceptable because it's shaped as the
best proposition ever. Make your own. Microsoft should not ask people to
pay anything for a technology they impose, the new economy is about giving
what you produce, I guess we'll receive a lot and lower down the quantity
of sh
Hi,
Am 26.06.2012 04:29, schrieb Manolo Martínez:
> Just for clarification: you seem to be endorsing a model in which
> organizations (linux distros?) pay Microsoft for the right to install
> non-Microsoft software in PCs. Is that correct?
Yeah, I see that this creeps the shit out of some of you.
On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 10:28 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 22:29 -0400, Manolo Martínez wrote:
> > On 06/26/12 at 12:55am, Karol Babioch wrote:
> > > I have only the following criticism: Given the relatively low cost of
> > > getting a signed certificate from Microsoft (to my kn
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 22:29 -0400, Manolo Martínez wrote:
> On 06/26/12 at 12:55am, Karol Babioch wrote:
> > I have only the following criticism: Given the relatively low cost of
> > getting a signed certificate from Microsoft (to my knowledge it will
> > cost about 100 USD), it might fail to achie
On 06/26/12 at 12:55am, Karol Babioch wrote:
> I have only the following criticism: Given the relatively low cost of
> getting a signed certificate from Microsoft (to my knowledge it will
> cost about 100 USD), it might fail to achieve what it is proposed to.
> Obviously Microsoft will try to preve
On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 01:43 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 01:29 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 00:55 +0200, Karol Babioch wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > seems to be a classical case of Godwin's law ;).
> >
> > I've got no time to read your mail now, I'll d
On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 01:29 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 00:55 +0200, Karol Babioch wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > seems to be a classical case of Godwin's law ;).
>
> I've got no time to read your mail now, I'll do it later, but regarding
> to the first sentences, Godwin's law is a
On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 00:55 +0200, Karol Babioch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> seems to be a classical case of Godwin's law ;).
I've got no time to read your mail now, I'll do it later, but regarding
to the first sentences, Godwin's law is another issue. When talking
about different opinions there often is a
Hi,
seems to be a classical case of Godwin's law ;).
But back to topic: To be honest I don't understand what all the fuzz is
about. From a security point of view it makes totally sense to
sign/verify every piece of code that gets executed when booting.
Otherwise there will always be some sort of
> I am following this thread, and honestly, who needs to dual boot today?
Most of my systems are single OS but I have a system with atleast 6 OS's
on it and over 10 virtual images on one of them. Granted a couple of the
Os's could be cleaned out now, but only a couple.
On another system I have a
> Yep, no issue for me, my mobos will be based on Intel or AMD.
IMO it's not mainly about you or me, though I'm all for making it
easier to use your own keys, heck I can build my own hardware and I
expect BIOS choice will be the answer.
I ask myself would it have stopped me using Unix. Probably
On 06/25/2012 01:51 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 22:05 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 21:44 +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
On 25/06/12 21:18, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 21:13 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 20:59 +0200, Ralf
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 22:05 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 21:44 +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> > On 25/06/12 21:18, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 21:13 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 20:59 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > >>> On Mon,
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 21:44 +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> On 25/06/12 21:18, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 21:13 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 20:59 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 20:37 +0200, Arno Gaboury wrote:
> Once upon a
On 06/25/2012 12:44 PM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
On 25/06/12 21:18, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 21:13 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 20:59 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 20:37 +0200, Arno Gaboury wrote:
Once upon a time, I had a dream OSX woul
On 25/06/12 21:18, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 21:13 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>> On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 20:59 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 20:37 +0200, Arno Gaboury wrote:
Once upon a time, I had a dream OSX would leed to some kind of "semi
open"
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 21:13 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 20:59 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 20:37 +0200, Arno Gaboury wrote:
> > > Once upon a time, I had a dream OSX would leed to some kind of "semi
> > > open" OS, with lots of dev improvments from th
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 20:59 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 20:37 +0200, Arno Gaboury wrote:
> > Once upon a time, I had a dream OSX would leed to some kind of "semi
> > open" OS, with lots of dev improvments from the community.
> >
> > PPP, it was long time ago, and was re
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 20:37 +0200, Arno Gaboury wrote:
> Once upon a time, I had a dream OSX would leed to some kind of "semi
> open" OS, with lots of dev improvments from the community.
>
> PPP, it was long time ago, and was really naive.
Hahaha, when I searched for a successor for my Atari
On 06/25/2012 08:31 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 20:26 +0200, Arno Gaboury wrote:
On 06/25/2012 07:44 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 19:24 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 25.06.2012 18:37, schrieb Kevin Chadwick:
If I understand it right, in Setup Mode, you can
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 20:26 +0200, Arno Gaboury wrote:
> On 06/25/2012 07:44 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 19:24 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> >> Am 25.06.2012 18:37, schrieb Kevin Chadwick:
> > If I understand it right, in Setup Mode, you can either boot any
> > non-si
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 19:54 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 13:45 -0400, Manolo Martínez wrote:
> > On 06/25/12 at 05:59pm, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > > We
> > > already know, that UEFI can't be disabled for every hardware :(.
> >
> >
> > That's what I thought, too. Also: the poin
On 06/25/2012 07:44 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 19:24 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 25.06.2012 18:37, schrieb Kevin Chadwick:
If I understand it right, in Setup Mode, you can either boot any
non-signed operating system, or you can import your own keys into the
firmware, so t
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 13:45 -0400, Manolo Martínez wrote:
> On 06/25/12 at 05:59pm, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > We
> > already know, that UEFI can't be disabled for every hardware :(.
>
>
> That's what I thought, too. Also: the point is not just whether there
> are technical ways around Secure Boot,
On 06/25/12 at 05:59pm, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> We
> already know, that UEFI can't be disabled for every hardware :(.
That's what I thought, too. Also: the point is not just whether there
are technical ways around Secure Boot, but whether this will raise the
technical entry barrier to FOSS, making
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 19:24 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 25.06.2012 18:37, schrieb Kevin Chadwick:
> >>>
> >>> If I understand it right, in Setup Mode, you can either boot any
> >>> non-signed operating system, or you can import your own keys into the
> >>> firmware, so that you can sign your
Am 25.06.2012 18:37, schrieb Kevin Chadwick:
>>>
>>> If I understand it right, in Setup Mode, you can either boot any
>>> non-signed operating system, or you can import your own keys into the
>>> firmware, so that you can sign your own bootloaders. For me, this is
>>> enough to not care about Secur
> >
> > If I understand it right, in Setup Mode, you can either boot any
> > non-signed operating system, or you can import your own keys into the
> > firmware, so that you can sign your own bootloaders. For me, this is
> > enough to not care about Secure Boot.
> >
I didn't know key replacemen
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 10:39 -0500, Leonid Isaev wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:35:16 +0200
> Thomas Bächler wrote:
>
> > Am 23.06.2012 04:09, schrieb Manolo Martínez:
> > > Is Arch going to sign [this
> > > petition](http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement)?
> > > I
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:35:16 +0200
Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 23.06.2012 04:09, schrieb Manolo Martínez:
> > Is Arch going to sign [this
> > petition](http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement)?
> > I, for one humble user, would like it (us, whatever) to.
> >
> > Mano
On Debian user mailing list somebody mentioned that hitting "Enter"
instead of using the "Save" button did work for him to sign up at
fsf.org.
IIRC the "Save" button did work for me this morning.
> Am I the only one?
Worked for me a while back but their mail server failed RFC compliance
and so the confirmation failed getting through my greylisting. There's a
new RFC that's very clear on greylisting apparently so that should
hopefully sort itself out.
Last time I tried I got the must be lo
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 09:49:44AM +0200, Geoffroy PLANQUART wrote:
>
> Did anyone sign it? I've got problem once submitting, I'm redirected to
> crm.fsf.org which says that I must be logged in :/
>
Reminds me that last time I tried drupal it was utter brokenness. No real
surprise this hasn't c
Am 23.06.2012 04:09, schrieb Manolo Martínez:
> Is Arch going to sign [this
> petition](http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement)?
> I, for one humble user, would like it (us, whatever) to.
>
> Manolo
While I won't answer your question, I have this to say:
For a no
Sorry for crossposting and that for some lists it becomes a new thread,
but on different lists people reported issues when they tried to sign
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement
I used Firefox 13.0.1 Ubuntu Precise x86_64, JavaScript is enabled and
cookies are all
On 06/25/2012 09:58 AM, Patrick Burroughs wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Geoffroy PLANQUART
wrote:
Did anyone sign it? I've got problem once submitting, I'm redirected to
crm.fsf.org which says that I must be logged in :/
Am I the only one?
You're definitely not the only one, I'm h
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Geoffroy PLANQUART
wrote:
> Did anyone sign it? I've got problem once submitting, I'm redirected to
> crm.fsf.org which says that I must be logged in :/
>
> Am I the only one?
You're definitely not the only one, I'm having the same issue.
~Celti
2012/6/25 Geoffroy PLANQUART
>
> On Jun 25, 2012, at 6:24 AM, David C. Rankin wrote:
>
> > On 06/22/2012 09:09 PM, Manolo Martínez wrote:
> >> Is Arch going to sign [this petition](
> http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement)?
> I, for one humble user, would like it (
On Jun 25, 2012, at 6:24 AM, David C. Rankin wrote:
> On 06/22/2012 09:09 PM, Manolo Martínez wrote:
>> Is Arch going to sign [this
>> petition](http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement)?
>> I, for one humble user, would like it (us, whatever) to.
>>
>> Manolo
Did
On 06/22/2012 09:09 PM, Manolo Martínez wrote:
> Is Arch going to sign [this
> petition](http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement)?
> I, for one humble user, would like it (us, whatever) to.
>
> Manolo
>
Sometimes the political side of open-source is just as import
Is Arch going to sign [this
petition](http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement)?
I, for one humble user, would like it (us, whatever) to.
Manolo
--
45 matches
Mail list logo
