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
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.
No, 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 to
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 it only
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 sure 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 basis. If
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 as I
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 the other
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Jochen Spieker m...@well-adjusted.de 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?
-audio-user
Subject: [LAU] OT: Wait, did [UEFI] just really happen?
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:25:16 +0200
Take a look at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/06/threads.html#00267
for the thread the ghost of UEFI and Micr0$0ft.
I flagged
5, 2012 at 12:52 PM
Subject: the ghost of UEFI and Micr0$0ft
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
i was reading this article - http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html
It is written by someone related to redhat and it describes implementing
UEFI secure boot in Fedora Core.
Lot of PC/laptop/tablets
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 fight against this
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
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 outstanding
On 07/06/12 16:46, Miles Bader wrote:
Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com 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
Correction
On 11/06/12 12:36, Scott Ferguson wrote:
snipped
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 to show the
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
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
* 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.
Hello Miles,
Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
Or is entering a new key a manual process (type in the 50 hex digit
key)?
Something like that, yes. Either via an already-signed update at
runtime or manually at something like the current BIOS interfaces.
Can there be multiple keys (I vaguely
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
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 kernels,
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 09:33:45PM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com writes:
You can't disable the code signing requirement on ARM.
... which is a great deal more worrying.
Hi,
Dňa Fri, 8 Jun 2012 06:21:46 -0400 Carl Fink c...@finknetwork.com
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
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 rle...@codelibre.net 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
On 07.06.2012 03:43, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net 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?
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Ralf Mardorf
ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net 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
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Ralf Mardorf
ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote:
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
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.b...@gmail.com 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
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, but Linux
Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com 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) without UEFI that can be
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
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, that
it
On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 14:51 +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
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.
Resp.
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 are
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 Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com 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
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net 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
Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 06:20 -0400, Tom H wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net 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?
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.
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, 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 it's not
Ahoj,
Dňa Thu, 7 Jun 2012 06:14:17 -0400 Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com napísal:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Andrei POPESCU
andreimpope...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Ralf Mardorf ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 06:20 -0400, Tom H wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net wrote:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 01:07:23PM -0400, Tom H wrote:
What's non-free about signing the
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
I can get the source and modify it. But I can't exercise my freedom
by actually running it. I can't *use* it. Not unless I pay some
money for a special key. And get authorised to run my own code on
my own computer.
Let's be clear what this is. I have to get *permission* from someone
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
Scott Ferguson scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net 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
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. That's
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 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
Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.b...@gmail.com 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 ssl certs
without
On 20120607_213632, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net 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
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
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Camaleón noela...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:03:54 +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:
Camaleón noela...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Microsoft (I can't tell for the rest of the hardware manufacturers
because their position is not mentioned in detail in the
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net 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
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 the
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
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 ones.
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 paper you
On Ma, 05 iun 12, 18:55:59, Nuno Magalhães wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Camaleón noela...@gmail.com 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
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 5:04 PM, ACro a...@bluebottle.com 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
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Scott Ferguson
scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com 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
On 06/06/12 19:23, Tom H wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Scott Ferguson
scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com 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
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
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Scott Ferguson
scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/06/12 19:23, Tom H wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Scott Ferguson
scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote:
;consider also that Fedora has *not* said they won't be sharing the key
On 06/06/12 20:47, Tom H wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Scott Ferguson
scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/06/12 19:23, Tom H wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Scott Ferguson
scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote:
;consider also that Fedora has *not* said
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 Fedora's. And
Fedora wouldn't want to take the risk of loaning its
* 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 follow
the spec and
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Scott Ferguson
scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/06/12 20:47, Tom H wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Scott Ferguson
scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/06/12 19:23, Tom H wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Scott Ferguson
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).
Let's not blindly assume that all hardware
On 06/06/12 22:51, Tom H wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Scott Ferguson
scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/06/12 20:47, Tom H wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Scott Ferguson
scott.ferguson.debian.u...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/06/12 19:23, Tom H wrote:
On Wed, Jun
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:07:42 -0400, Tom H wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Camaleón noela...@gmail.com 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
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
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 Tue, 05 Jun 2012 21:40:23 -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Camaleón noela...@gmail.com 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
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 18:55:59 +0100, Nuno Magalhães wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Camaleón noela...@gmail.com 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
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
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:01:53 -0400, Tom H wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Camaleón noela...@gmail.com wrote:
(...)
http://blog.canonical.com/2011/10/28/white-paper-secure-boot-impact-
on-linux/
That white paper points to Canonical and Redhat companies.
I wonder if they tried to
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 and/or
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 21:37:31 -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Camaleón noela...@gmail.com wrote:
(...)
Repeat with me: we-don't-need-Windows-anymore.
This has absolutely *nothing* to do with a dependency on Windows.
Yes, it is. And more specifically with
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 09:40:23PM -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Camaleón noela...@gmail.com wrote:
That's the problem: we don't have to care about Windows security, it's
not our business! That's a problem for the Windows users not for us.
If you don't
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 03:13:23 -0400, Tom H wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Camaleón noela...@gmail.com 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 think there is no
Hi Andrei,
Dňa Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:44:27 +0300 Andrei POPESCU
andreimpope...@gmail.com 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 Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Laurence Hurst l.a.hu...@lboro.ac.uk 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
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Camaleón noela...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:07:42 -0400, Tom H wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Camaleón noela...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:26:55 +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:
However, I welcome the fact that attacks on Windows
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 13:11:26 -0400, Tom H wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Camaleón noela...@gmail.com 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
* 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 is
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
--
.''`.
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Nate Bargmann n...@n0nb.us 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
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
andreimpope...@gmail.com napísal:
in our country is more and more difficult to buy computer (specially
notebook) without Windows included. In one shop they are telling
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
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.
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net 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
On 06/06/2012 08:43 PM, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Roger Leighrle...@codelibre.net 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?
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
i was reading this article - http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html
It is written by someone related to redhat and it describes implementing
UEFI secure boot in Fedora Core.
Lot of PC/laptop/tablets in 2012 and beyond will have UEFI instead of good
old bios.
I want to know what Debian is
On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 12:52 +0530, Harshad Joshi wrote:
i was reading this article - http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html
[snip]
Will Debian community fight against this evil step taken by computer
makers ?
[snip]
IIUC this only will effect multi-boots, when at least one OS is
Microsoft
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 12:52:22 +0530, Harshad Joshi wrote:
(please, no html, thanks...)
i was reading this article - http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html
It is written by someone related to redhat and it describes implementing
UEFI secure boot in Fedora Core.
Lot of PC/laptop/tablets in
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
