Hi
Does any of you have some knowledge on how to install Debian testing
with UEFI?
I looked via search function of the web sites in
- debian.org
- wiki.debian.org
with 0 hits. I found some links that described the howto, but they seem
outdated:
- install via MBR and grub-pc (works)
- install
Lisi:
> On Monday 25 June 2012 16:13:54 Jochen Spieker wrote:
>> And, BTW, Desktop LTS support lasts only for 3 years, not 5.
>
> I recently read that it was changing to five for the desktop, as well as the
> server edition. If you say that this is an urban myth, I am happy to believe
> you.
N
On Monday 25 June 2012 16:13:54 Jochen Spieker wrote:
> And, BTW, Desktop LTS support lasts only for 3 years, not 5.
I recently read that it was changing to five for the desktop, as well as the
server edition. If you say that this is an urban myth, I am happy to believe
you.
Lisi
--
To UNSU
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>
> And, BTW, Desktop LTS support lasts only for 3 years, not 5.
It's been pushed up to 5 years with 12.04.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lis
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 17:02 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 09:49 -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> > Lisi writes:
> > > I am just sorry that they have changed it at all. Ubuntu now has 5
> > > year support for its long term supported version. Such a pity that
> > > Debian is going t
Lisi:
>
> I am just sorry that they have changed it at all. Ubuntu now has 5 year
> support for its long term supported version. Such a pity that Debian is
> going the other way. :-(
This comparison is a bit unfair since Ubuntu officially only supports
its "main" repository which is, as far a
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 09:49 -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Lisi writes:
> > I am just sorry that they have changed it at all. Ubuntu now has 5
> > year support for its long term supported version. Such a pity that
> > Debian is going the other way.
>
> Support beyond Stable is on a "best effort" ba
Lisi writes:
> I am just sorry that they have changed it at all. Ubuntu now has 5
> year support for its long term supported version. Such a pity that
> Debian is going the other way.
Support beyond Stable is on a "best effort" basis. If enough people
were willing to actually work on it I'm sur
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 15:29 +0100, Lisi wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 June 2012 18:55:59 Nuno Magalhães wrote:
> > That's awkward, i was under the impression there was a change some
> > years back so that the stable branch would change to a 6 months
> > release schedule. Did that never go through or was i
On Tuesday 05 June 2012 18:55:59 Nuno Magalhães wrote:
> That's awkward, i was under the impression there was a change some
> years back so that the stable branch would change to a 6 months
> release schedule. Did that never go through or was it only temporary?
It was cancelled, though they seem t
rest of the article I share most of your feelings but won't
> repeat because I alredy commented on this thread what are my thoughts on
> this.
FWIW sometime ago I posted the links to the archive at LAU, the OP of
the UEFI thread might take a look there:
Forwarded
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 18:26:17 +0530, Harshad Joshi wrote:
> For some reasons i am not able to get debian members response in my
> mailbox to my query posted on mailing list.
(...)
Most of the Debian mailing lists are open, meaning there's no need for
users who want to post to be subscribed.
To
Harshad Joshi writes:
> Lot of PC/laptop/tablets in 2012 and beyond will have UEFI instead of
> good old bios.
Bad old bios. Very bad. It was designed for 8080s and floppy disks.
It was excellent for that environment but it has been obsolete for
decades.
> Will Debian community figh
For some reasons i am not able to get debian members response in my mailbox
to my query posted on mailing list.
So i have written a brief post about UEFI, Canonical and Microsoft over
here -
http://harshad.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/the-ghost-of-uefi-and-micr00ft/
Canonical too has some plans for
Good time of the day, Camaleón.
Thank You for Your support and assistance for Deb. users!
You worte:
> We don't have to hold for those "horrible" things anymore. We need to
> develop our own way. If we remain at the commands of MS we will be
> doing it wrong.
I agree w/ You. Debian is outstand
Correction
On 11/06/12 12:36, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> add your own key to the UEFI... apparently that would *require you
> typing it in* (256 characters).
I can't confirm that as I had first hand access to the W8 pad, could be
a bum steer. :-(
Nothing in the published specs
mpossible to buy an ARM (or
>> other CPU based board) without UEFI that can be disabled - but I support
>> devices that can be made to *only* run signed code *provided* MS is
>> *not* the certificate agency.
>
> Would that mean anybody who wants to build their own kernel wou
* On 2012 09 Jun 01:15 -0500, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 06:20:12PM -0700, Weaver wrote:
> > After all this time, he still doesn't understand that the free/open source
> > software movement works for itself.
>
> He has a bit of an axe to grind.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wi
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 06:20:12PM -0700, Weaver wrote:
>> After all this time, he still doesn't understand that the free/open
>> source
>> software movement works for itself.
>
> He has a bit of an axe to grind.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists
> http://www.digibarn.com
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 06:20:12PM -0700, Weaver wrote:
> After all this time, he still doesn't understand that the free/open source
> software movement works for itself.
He has a bit of an axe to grind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists
http://www.digibarn.com/collections/new
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 06:21 -0400, Carl Fink wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 05:26:30AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>
> > The handling for the end user is optimized to fit to the needs of
> > Windows end users. Slavko already has written that Windows end users
> > don't compile Windows kernels, bu
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
> "Christofer C. Bell" writes:
>>> Would that mean anybody who wants to build their own kernel would need
>>> to buy a signing key?
>>
>> Not at all. You can generate your own key and load it into y
Perhaps Linux keys sold by Microsoft will be blacklisted, because of US
> laws, such as the prohibition to share hardware and software with some
> countries the US government doesn't like.
They're not "Linux keys sold by Microsoft" they're "UEFI secure boot
signi
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Ralf Mardorf
wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 23:34 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> Let's be clear what this is. I have to get *permission* from someone
>> else, to run a program on my own computer. To actually use my
>> computer to do my stuff, I have to take extraor
to build and install and boot my own kernel?
>>
>> No? Looks like I lost the freedom to have any semblance of control
>> over my own hardware.
>
> You have the freedom to either:
>
> a.) Disable Secure Boot and run your own kernel
>
> or
>
> b.) Gene
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 09:36:32PM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >
> > Let's be clear what this is. I have to get *permission* from someone
> > else, to run a program on my own computer. To actually use my
> > computer to do my stuff, I h
Hi,
Dňa Fri, 8 Jun 2012 06:21:46 -0400 Carl Fink
napísal:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 05:26:30AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>
> > The handling for the end user is optimized to fit to the needs of
> > Windows end users. Slavko already has written that Windows end users
> > don't compile Windows ke
t deal more worrying.
> >>
> >> Yes. And no.
> >> I'd hate to see a situation where it was impossible to buy an ARM (or
> >> other CPU based board) without UEFI that can be disabled - but I support
> >> devices that can be made to *only* run signe
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 06:21:46AM -0400, Carl Fink wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 05:26:30AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>
> > The handling for the end user is optimized to fit to the needs of
> > Windows end users. Slavko already has written that Windows end users
> > don't compile Windows kern
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 05:26:30AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> The handling for the end user is optimized to fit to the needs of
> Windows end users. Slavko already has written that Windows end users
> don't compile Windows kernels, but Linux end users do.
No we don't. That hasn't been generally
ese
signatures.
That is, a driver A can be only be signed by one entity (1) and
driver B can only be signed by 2, but if you have both the public
keys of 1 and 2 in your UEFI keystore, you can load driver A and
driver B. Of course, it is also possible to distribute variants A'
and A'&
On 20120607_213632, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> >
> > Let's be clear what this is. I have to get *permission* from someone
> > else, to run a program on my own computer. To actually use my
> > computer to do my stuff, I have to take extraordin
"Christofer C. Bell" writes:
>> Would that mean anybody who wants to build their own kernel would need
>> to buy a signing key?
>
> Not at all. You can generate your own key and load it into your UEFI.
> It's no different a situation than using self-signed s
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 21:36 -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> This "new world" doesn't tie you to Microsoft or any other company.
You're mistaken, it does and it does it in a way I don't like it.
As soon as Apple or Microsoft are involved in such things, a healthy
suspicion can't harm.
Perhaps L
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 18:20 -0400, Tom H wrote:
> You're already paying a for-profit company for your computer so this
> is "just" another USD 99 for a key.
It might be that I need to pay for the BIOS or whatever, when I buy a
new mobo, dunno, but I don't pay a Cent now and my mobo doesn't nearly
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 23:34 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Let's be clear what this is. I have to get *permission* from someone
> else, to run a program on my own computer. To actually use my
> computer to do my stuff, I have to take extraordinary steps to get
> someone else to grant me access. Tha
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
>
> Let's be clear what this is. I have to get *permission* from someone
> else, to run a program on my own computer. To actually use my
> computer to do my stuff, I have to take extraordinary steps to get
> someone else to grant me access. Tha
where it was impossible to buy an ARM (or
>> other CPU based board) without UEFI that can be disabled - but I support
>> devices that can be made to *only* run signed code *provided* MS is
>> *not* the certificate agency.
>
> Would that mean anybody who wants to build their
a stupid, childish, fearful braggart, just being
able to erect concrete walls in defense of its obtusely built world.
They could *learn* from the creative and constructive ways of FLOSS,
and still sell their things and make money, but no, just fearfully
locking everything.
We are not going to allow th
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 06:20:25PM -0400, Tom H wrote:
> The shim boot loader that's being planned by Fedora would be signed by
> Microsoft but is open source [1] - it wouldn't be accepted in Fedora
> otherwise.
>From the Free Software Foundation:
A program is free software if the program's users
from Verisign, etc...
>>
>> I'll be buying a new laptop in December/January and I'll give that a
>> try. We'll see how much of a PitA it's going to be.
>
> If I should need to buy a key from a company handling the UEFI keys,
> assumed it's not a
Ahoj,
Dňa Thu, 7 Jun 2012 06:14:17 -0400 Tom H napísal:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Andrei POPESCU
> wrote:
> > On Mi, 06 iun 12, 13:04:50, Kelly Clowers wrote:
> >>
> >> I sincerely doubt it. Although I guess it depends on what you mean by
> >> "via the network". Worms that infect like S
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 11:50:29 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> OT:
>
> On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 14:41 +, Camaleón wrote:
>> Windows users with secure boot enabled who want to boot a different OS
>> should ask MS how to do it, don't you think? They have paid for what
>> they have installed.
>
> IIRC
Ralf writes:
> Fortunately there are laws against monopolies...
No there aren't. There are laws against _abusing_ monopolies.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 19:46 +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> it _does_ conveniently lay the groundwork for the
> sort of locked-down no-user-control hardware ecosystem which is
> fervently desired by many unsavory parties, who are most certainly not
> acting with the best interests of the public in mind
l give that a
> try. We'll see how much of a PitA it's going to be.
>
>
If I should need to buy a key from a company handling the UEFI keys,
assumed it's not a Linux related company, to use Linux with a self build
kernel, I would drop Linux soon. Fortunately there are laws
Andrei POPESCU writes:
> But still, those attacks wouldn't be prevented by Secure Boot, so Nate's
> argument (Secure Boot won't improve Windows security) still stands.
That's why the whole thing seems so creepy... even if they --
currently! -- allow it to be disabled:
It really won't make compu
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 01:07:23PM -0400, Tom H wrote:
>>
>> What's non-free about signing the "boot-chain"?
>
> Do I have the freedom to build and install and boot my own kernel?
>
> No? Looks like I lost the freedom to have any semblance of c
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 06 iun 12, 13:04:50, Kelly Clowers wrote:
>>
>> I sincerely doubt it. Although I guess it depends on what you mean by
>> "via the network". Worms that infect like SQL Slammer are relatively
>> rare, AFAIK most malware get in via drive-
OT:
On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 14:41 +, Camaleón wrote:
> Windows users with secure boot enabled who want to boot a different OS
> should ask MS how to do it, don't you think? They have paid for what
> they have installed.
IIRC it's not allowed to run a Linux on the same machine, beside a
Windows,
On Mi, 06 iun 12, 13:04:50, Kelly Clowers wrote:
>
> I sincerely doubt it. Although I guess it depends on what you mean by
> "via the network". Worms that infect like SQL Slammer are relatively
> rare, AFAIK most malware get in via drive-by downloads, or intentional
> installation of programs that
ginner to install Linux on.
Resp. there will be something similar to a jailbreak for Apple, that
enables to disable UEFI, even if it can't be disabled by a BIOS option
for Intel, ASUS and other boards. At least hardware alterations will be
available, comparable to Mac clones.
There always will b
On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 19:04 +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 06/06/12 18:44, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Ma, 05 iun 12, 20:26:03, Slavko wrote:
> >>
> >> in our country is more and more difficult to buy computer (specially
> >> notebook) without Windows included. In one shop they are telling me,
On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 05:21 -0400, Tom H wrote:
> Consider banking.
Online-banking already is impossible for me, regarding to a technology
the German Postbank is using. I once enabled it, then disabled it and
now me and even the Postbank admins are unable to enable online-banking
again.
They impl
Scott Ferguson writes:
>>> You can't disable the code signing requirement on ARM.
>>
>> ... which is a great deal more worrying.
>
> Yes. And no.
> I'd hate to see a situation where it was impossible to buy an ARM (or
> other CPU based board) withou
> On 07. 06. 12 00:33, Weaver wrote:
> > There are two issues only to consider here:
> >
> > (1) Who controls the keys and who controls them.
> >
> > (2) I resent any degree of control of the open source software
> > movement being given over into the control of anybody else.
> >
> > Recog
ad your
own key into your system's UEFI.
I doubt that this will be easy- they'll have to make it inordinately
difficult to discourage social engineering attacks and the like.
You have no lost any semblance of control over your own hardware.
Yes, you have. Luckily (at least in the U.S.) w
lost the freedom to have any semblance of control
> over my own hardware.
You have the freedom to either:
a.) Disable Secure Boot and run your own kernel
or
b.) Generate your own signing key, sign your own kernel, and load your
own key into your system's UEFI.
You have no lost any sembl
On 07. 06. 12 00:33, Weaver wrote:
> There are two issues only to consider here:
>
> (1) Who controls the keys and who controls them.
>
> (2) I resent any degree of control of the open source software
> movement being given over into the control of anybody else.
>
> Recognise this for what it is.
There are two issues only to consider here:
(1) Who controls the keys and who controls them.
(2) I resent any degree of control of the open source software movement
being given over into the control of anybody else.
Recognise this for what it is.
Microsoft fears us.
Gates admitted this in a rece
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 06:04:12PM +0200, Slavko wrote:
> Hi Andrei,
>
> Dňa Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:44:27 +0300 Andrei POPESCU
> napísal:
>
> > > in our country is more and more difficult to buy computer (specially
> > > notebook) without Windows included. In one shop they are telling me,
> > > that
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * On 2012 06 Jun 12:13 -0500, Tom H wrote:
>> It's not irrelevant. Irrespective of Linux using or not using Secure
>> Boot, I want Microsoft to take every measure the it can take to reduce
>> the number of compromised Windows boxes and theref
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 01:07:23PM -0400, Tom H wrote:
>
> What's non-free about signing the "boot-chain"?
Do I have the freedom to build and install and boot my own kernel?
No? Looks like I lost the freedom to have any semblance of control
over my own hardware.
Regards,
Roger
--
.''`. R
* On 2012 06 Jun 12:13 -0500, Tom H wrote:
> It's not irrelevant. Irrespective of Linux using or not using Secure
> Boot, I want Microsoft to take every measure the it can take to reduce
> the number of compromised Windows boxes and therefore reduce the
> number of attacks on my Linux boxes.
What
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 13:11:26 -0400, Tom H wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>>> Can you guarantee that there isn't and will never be a BIOS rootkit
>>> that affects Linux?
>>>
>>> Can you guarantee that Windows botnets don't/won't attack Linux boxes?
>>
>> Tom, that's irre
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Camaleón wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:07:42 -0400, Tom H wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>>> On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:26:55 +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:
However, I welcome the fact that attacks on Windows will be made more
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Laurence Hurst wrote:
> On 06/06/2012 11:47, Tom H wrote:
>>
>> Nowhere is the proposed Fedora 99-dollar-key being offered to other
>> distributions. Since it only costs USD 99 it wouldn't make sense for
>> Debian, for example, not to get its own rather than use Fed
Hi Andrei,
Dňa Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:44:27 +0300 Andrei POPESCU
napísal:
> > in our country is more and more difficult to buy computer (specially
> > notebook) without Windows included. In one shop they are telling me,
> > that it si not possible.
>
> If you have such an answer on paper you *migh
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 03:13:23 -0400, Tom H wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:03:54 +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:
(...)
>>> UEFI has many benefits over the traditional BIOS, secure boot being
>>> one of them. Why do you
users not for us.
>
> If you don't care about Windows security then just turn off secure
> boot. You're running Debian to begin with. I'm sure you can figure
> it out. You're a technical person. UEFI secure boot was *not
> developed to benefit Microsoft*. Mi
at feature if
they want to dual boot their computers, right?
>> The price to pay here is more than a few pennies: there's a freedom
>> price.
>
> There is absolutely zero price anyone needs to pay. Fedora is
> purchasing a key from a trusted 3rd party to sign their own c
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 03:40:13PM +0100, Laurence Hurst wrote:
> I can see this turning into a support nightmare for Fedora when,
> inevitably, some hardware or firmware comes along which (at least as
> an interim measure until "official" fixes are released) requires the
> use of a newer kernel an
important, at leats for me. If other linux manufacturers want to
play alone in this game, that's fine but I'd also like knowing my
"partners" and what's their position on the subject. This UEFI issue is
an important thing I would take with extremely care, I mean, is not lik
On 06/06/2012 14:56, Jon Dowland wrote:
and it'd require resources to manage and maintain, something better suited to
a commercial enterprise.
That's the big deal. Fedora seem to believe they can manage maintaining closed
and signed bootloaders, kernel and kernel modules. That would be very di
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 18:55:59 +0100, Nuno Magalhães wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>> And remember
>> Debian has not a time-based schedule for their releases
>
> That's awkward, i was under the impression there was a change some years
> back so that the stable branch wou
You're running Debian to begin with. I'm sure you can figure it out.
> You're a technical person.
"You, you, you..." *I'm* not the problem here.
> UEFI secure boot was *not developed to benefit Microsoft*.
We're not talking here about the UEFI
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 09:56:07PM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> the only things stopping Debian from getting a key is that not many
> manufacturers would use it
They wouldn't have to: they have to trust anything signed with a private
key that MS/Versign hold, so if Debian paid the 99$ and got a
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 11:31:11PM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> Not immediately it's not (W7). Perhaps >W7. How about Apple?
The irony here is that Apple hardware might end up being the easiest for a
beginner to install Linux on.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.o
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:07:42 -0400, Tom H wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:26:55 +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:
>>>
>>> However, I welcome the fact that attacks on Windows will be made more
>>> difficult, since that also means smaller botnets, fewer
ora didn't want to buy a
>>> 99-dollar-key and have it loaded into the firmware of the hardware
>>> manufacturers who'd agree to do so.
>>
>> I read that as "there was no realistic chance that we could get *all* of
>> them to carry it", and so t
On 06/06/12 22:14, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * On 2012 05 Jun 23:04 -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
>> Please articulate what freedoms, exactly, you're losing through the
>> availability of UEFI secure boot (a feature you are in no way
>> compelled to use).
>
> Le
e to other distributions*. We want to
>>> compete on merit, not because we have better links to OEMs.
>>
>> In this para, MG's saying that Fedora didn't want to buy a
>> 99-dollar-key and have it loaded into the firmware of the hardware
>> manufacturers who&#
* On 2012 05 Jun 23:04 -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> Please articulate what freedoms, exactly, you're losing through the
> availability of UEFI secure boot (a feature you are in no way
> compelled to use).
Let's not blindly assume that all hardware manufacturers will
e creating a walled-garden for
the entire boot chain through to the kernel modules on secure-boot
enabled systems.
Could the hardware manufactures not have provided a method to allow OS
installers (as in installation programs) to add their own keys via an
UEFI level call which results in a pr
gt;
> In this para, MG's saying that Fedora didn't want to buy a
> 99-dollar-key and have it loaded into the firmware of the hardware
> manufacturers who'd agree to do so.
I read that as "there was no realistic chance that we could get *all* of
them to carry it", and
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Scott Ferguson
wrote:
> On 06/06/12 19:23, Tom H wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Scott Ferguson
>> wrote:
>>> ;consider also that Fedora has *not* said they won't be sharing the key
>>
>> They won't share their Secure Boot key in the same way that they
There has to be some monopoly abuse scenario here.
How is Microsoft permitted to own the BIOS?
Garbage.
This is a clear cut denial of natural justice.
Regards,
Weaver.
--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false,
and by the rulers as useful.
— Lucius Annæus Sen
On 06/06/12 19:23, Tom H wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Scott Ferguson
> wrote:
>>
>> ;consider also that Fedora has *not* said they won't be sharing the key
>
> They won't share their Secure Boot key in the same way that they don't
> share their RPM-signing key(s).
I'm unable to fin
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Scott Ferguson
wrote:
>
> ;consider also that Fedora has *not* said they won't be sharing the key
They won't share their Secure Boot key in the same way that they don't
share their RPM-signing key(s).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 5:04 PM, ACro wrote:
>>
>> I won't send them a gift but if Fedora's the only distribution to
>> support Secure Boot, then it's the only one that I'll recommend to
>> friends (independently from installing and providing support for
>> Debian servers at some of my jobs) becaus
On Ma, 05 iun 12, 18:55:59, Nuno Magalhães wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Camaleón wrote:
> > And remember
> > Debian has not a time-based schedule for their releases
>
> That's awkward, i was under the impression there was a change some
> years back so that the stable branch would chan
On 06/06/12 18:44, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Ma, 05 iun 12, 20:26:03, Slavko wrote:
>>
>> in our country is more and more difficult to buy computer (specially
>> notebook) without Windows included. In one shop they are telling me, that
>> it si not possible.
>
> If you have such an answer on pap
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:02:49PM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> >> You can't disable the code signing requirement on ARM.
> >
> > Really? So the Raspberry Pi requires signed code? The Freedom Box
> > on ARM hardware requires signed code?
>
> Secure boot is about future devices, not current
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 12:52:22PM +0530, Harshad Joshi wrote:
> i was reading this article - http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html
>
> It is written by someone related to redhat
He's also a former Debian developer, and a former Ubuntu developer.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ.
On Ma, 05 iun 12, 20:26:03, Slavko wrote:
>
> in our country is more and more difficult to buy computer (specially
> notebook) without Windows included. In one shop they are telling me, that
> it si not possible.
If you have such an answer on paper you *might* be able to request a
refund for th
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 07:26:55PM +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:
>> However, I welcome the fact that attacks on Windows will be made more
>> difficult, since that also means smaller botnets, fewer vulnerable
>> computers etc.
>
> It will have ze
; forcing a needing for something I (and I guess others) _don't need_, like
> TPM modules, using a password in GRUB2, using encryption nor signing for
> safe code.
>>> "Blindly" here means there's no technical reason that supports the path
>>> they w
> This is not about "security" at all. This is about MSFT marginalizing
> and eliminating a serious competitor. It's MSFT's DNA.
Nate,
I perfectly agree: this MS role and attitude is so deeply radicated
that, sadly, we're getting used to it, eventually forgetting its real
meaning in terms of f
, except that MS is one of the main parties pushing this ...
>
>> You can't disable the code signing requirement on ARM.
>
> ... which is a great deal more worrying.
Yes. And no.
I'd hate to see a situation where it was impossible to buy an ARM (or
other CPU base
On 06/06/12 13:35, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * On 2012 05 Jun 21:45 -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Nate Bargmann wrote:
>>>
>>> Again, let MS rot in its malware hell. �I don't care!
I'm all right Jack
Great attitude.
>>
>> Comments like this make you look
701 - 800 of 862 matches
Mail list logo
