Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

UEFI considerations drive Fedora to pay MSFT to sign their kernel binaries http://cwonline.computerworld.com/t/8035515/1292406/565573/0/ This would seem to make compiling from source difficult. simply do not support it. As long as they are users of Fedora (as well as FreeBSD and other FREE s

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

> If you read Fedora's page they were planning to tighten their boot > sequence to then only boot their approved binary kernels. Save your old copies of lilo and grub. You're gonna need them if you want to stay on Intel Mafioso hardware. > Risk of key revocation later > If hardware manufac

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

> If you read Fedora's page they were planning to tighten their boot > sequence to then only boot their approved binary kernels. Save your old copies of lilo and grub. You're gonna need them if you want to stay on Intel Mafioso hardware. > Risk of key revocation later > If hardware manufac

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

Hi, Reference: > From: "C. P. Ghost" > Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:51:46 +0200 > Message-id: > "C. P. Ghost" wrote: > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Kurt Buff wrote: > > UEFI considerations drive Fedora to pay MSFT to sign their kernel binaries > > http://cwonline.computerw

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Kurt Buff wrote: > UEFI considerations drive Fedora to pay MSFT to sign their kernel binaries > http://cwonline.computerworld.com/t/8035515/1292406/565573/0/ > > This would seem to make compiling from source difficult. > > Kurt I'm not sure I understand the issue,

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

This thread has united the open source community into doing something useful and constructive. Thanks guys. You really showed 'em. -Modulok- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To uns

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 04:53:11PM -0400, Jerry wrote: > > . . . You obviously aren't serious. I can't believe I let you string me along with this fantasy for so long. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freeb

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

Jerry, Chad: please unsubscribe me from your mailing list. Thanks!! ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:44:36 -0600 Chad Perrin articulated: >> As stated above in my latest response, it is difficult to counter a >> statement by you since you don't really state anything. You say, "I >> have heard of such things referred to as being socialist, >> fascist, ..." (truncated by me)

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 02:46:49PM -0400, Jerry wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:44:11 -0600 Chad Perrin articulated: > >On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:59:46PM -0400, Jerry wrote: > >> > >> Your paranoia is kicking in again isn't it Chad. Anyway, to address > >> your sports analogy, if I walk into a NY

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:44:11 -0600 Chad Perrin articulated: >On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:59:46PM -0400, Jerry wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:11:11 -0600 Chad Perrin articulated: >> >> >On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 07:23:20AM -0400, Jerry wrote: >> >> >> >> It is fairly easy to understand both sides

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:59:46PM -0400, Jerry wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:11:11 -0600 Chad Perrin articulated: > > >On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 07:23:20AM -0400, Jerry wrote: > >> > >> It is fairly easy to understand both sides in this discussion. When > >> Microsoft supporters refer to open-so

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:11:11 -0600 Chad Perrin articulated: >On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 07:23:20AM -0400, Jerry wrote: >> >> It is fairly easy to understand both sides in this discussion. When >> Microsoft supporters refer to open-source software as "open-sore" or >> "socialist-software" the FOSS co

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 07:23:20AM -0400, Jerry wrote: > > It is fairly easy to understand both sides in this discussion. When > Microsoft supporters refer to open-source software as "open-sore" or > "socialist-software" the FOSS community becomes enraged. However, when > the open-source community

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 03:27:25AM +0200, Damien Fleuriot wrote: > > > On 9 Jun 2012, at 18:48, Chad Perrin wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 11:42:37PM +0200, Damien Fleuriot wrote: > >> > >> On 6 Jun 2012, at 21:52, Dave U. Random > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Polytropon wrote: > >>> >

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 418, Issue 19, Message: 23 On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:56:49 -0400 Jerry wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 22:06:26 +0200 > Julian H. Stacey articulated: [..] > >As a start here's : http://berklix.org/uefi/ > > > >URLs welcome. Contact names welcome. Volunteers welcome

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

Jerry wrote > It is posts like this that basically turn my stomach Never argue with a drunk. Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Reply below not above, cumulative like a play script, & indent with "> ". Format: Plain text. Not HTML, m

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 22:06:26 +0200 Julian H. Stacey articulated: >Too much hot air & preaching to the choir is counter productive >& would die away after internal argument. Better be active Externaly. >Defend our future by alerting governments there is an upcoming issue. >(eg EU has mega fined MS

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

Too much hot air & preaching to the choir is counter productive & would die away after internal argument. Better be active Externaly. Defend our future by alerting governments there is an upcoming issue. (eg EU has mega fined MS before for monopoly abuse, EU etc could warn off MS if we alert gover

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Bruce Cran wrote: > Does Intel control AMD too? Last I checked there are plenty of AMD machines > in major stores and they come with Windows too. So... attempting to bring reason into the argument? That won't do, I'm afraid. ;-) __

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On 10/06/2012 16:09, Nomen Nescio wrote: The point is the WinTel Mafia's many years of collusion and screwing over the customer. Try to buy a commodity PC in any major store and it will come with Windows, and you have to pay for it. Does Intel control AMD too? Last I checked there are plenty of

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On 06/10/2012 08:09 AM, Nomen Nescio wrote: This is really missing the point. The issue is not open source vs. proprietary although many people seem to try to steer everything into that meaningless conflict. The point is the WinTel Mafia's many years of collusion and screwing over the customer.

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

This is really missing the point. The issue is not open source vs. proprietary although many people seem to try to steer everything into that meaningless conflict. The point is the WinTel Mafia's many years of collusion and screwing over the customer. Try to buy a commodity PC in any major store a

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 03:27:25 +0200 Damien Fleuriot articulated: >On 9 Jun 2012, at 18:48, Chad Perrin wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 11:42:37PM +0200, Damien Fleuriot wrote: >>> >>> On 6 Jun 2012, at 21:52, Dave U. Random >>> wrote: >>> Polytropon wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jun 2

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On 9 Jun 2012, at 18:48, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 11:42:37PM +0200, Damien Fleuriot wrote: >> >> On 6 Jun 2012, at 21:52, Dave U. Random >> wrote: >> >>> Polytropon wrote: >>> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:47:11 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > Having to pay Verisign i

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 11:42:37PM +0200, Damien Fleuriot wrote: > > On 6 Jun 2012, at 21:52, Dave U. Random > wrote: > > > Polytropon wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:47:11 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > >>> Having to pay Verisign instead of Microsoft makes no difference: the > >>> poi

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On 06/06/2012 01:35 PM, Alejandro Imass wrote: But this is more to do with the BIOS than with Intel as such. Wasn't there a FreeBIOS, later LinuxBIOS, now coreboot I believe..? So replacing the BIOS entirely wouldn't suffice to override all this nonsense? _

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

> Totally off-topic, but I actually used mine to run gameboy and gameboy > advance emulators ^^' And I use mine to write PPC code. But Sony's business model wasn't about software development or doing what you and I are doing. > > Windows activation can check the firmware level and Intel's manage

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On 6/7/12 3:43 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote: >>> But my point is that MS doesn't issue the updates, they have to ask the >>> BIOS vendors to do so, and then the MB vendors have to take the update, >>> and then the users have to install the update. The incentive at each >>> level is generally very small.

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

> > But my point is that MS doesn't issue the updates, they have to ask the > > BIOS vendors to do so, and then the MB vendors have to take the update, > > and then the users have to install the update. The incentive at each > > level is generally very small. It does create some confusion, but is >

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

Snippet from Jerry : > I don't know of any user personally who purchased a new PC and then > threw FreeBSD on it. Most users that I have come into contact with use > 2+ year old units that have been replaced by shiny new Windows units. I > don't see that changing anytime soon. I did, or almost.

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?]

On 6/6/12 9:55 PM, Robert Simmons wrote: > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Jerry wrote: >> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:49:53 -0400 >> Daniel Staal articulated: >> >>> On 2012-06-05 17:20, Jerry wrote: >>> The question that I have not seen answered in this thread is what FreeBSD intents to d

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?]

On 6/5/12 10:19 PM, Colin Barnabas wrote: > On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:19:26AM -0700, Kurt Buff wrote: >> UEFI considerations drive Fedora to pay MSFT to sign their kernel binaries >> http://cwonline.computerworld.com/t/8035515/1292406/565573/0/ >> >> This would seem to make compiling from source

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On 6/6/12 9:43 PM, Daniel Feenberg wrote: > > > On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Damien Fleuriot wrote: > >> >> >> On 6/6/12 6:45 PM, Daniel Feenberg wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Julian H. Stacey wrote: >>> > I do wonder about that. What incentive does the possesor of a signing > key >

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?]

Hi, On 06 June 2012 21:10:14 p...@pair.com wrote: > in message <1849552.ouqdgjx...@x220.ovitrap.com>, > wrote Erich thusly... > > > > On 06 June 2012 23:27:39 Chad Perrin wrote: > ... > > > I have immediately installed FreeBSD on the last four or five > > > laptops I > > > > I do this since 5.2 is

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On 7 Jun 2012, at 01:54, Robert Bonomi wrote: >> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Wed Jun 6 18:13:09 2012 >> Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 00:09:54 +0100 >> From: Bruce Cran >> To: Robert Bonomi >> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >> Subject: Re: I

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?]

in message <1849552.ouqdgjx...@x220.ovitrap.com>, wrote Erich thusly... > > On 06 June 2012 23:27:39 Chad Perrin wrote: ... > > I have immediately installed FreeBSD on the last four or five > > laptops I > > I do this since 5.2 is out with all my purchases. ... > I have to admit, that I have had to

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?]

Hi, On 06 June 2012 23:27:39 Chad Perrin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 03:05:00PM -0400, Jerry wrote: > > > > I don't know of any user personally who purchased a new PC and then > > threw FreeBSD on it. Most users that I have come into contact with use > > 2+ year old units that have been repl

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?]

On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 03:05:00PM -0400, Jerry wrote: > > I don't know of any user personally who purchased a new PC and then > threw FreeBSD on it. Most users that I have come into contact with use > 2+ year old units that have been replaced by shiny new Windows units. I > don't see that changin

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

Alejandro Imass wrote: > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Dave U. Random > wrote: > > Polytropon wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:47:11 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > >> > Having to pay Verisign instead of Microsoft makes no difference: the > >> > point is why should I have to pay anything

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

Damien Fleuriot wrote: > > On 6 Jun 2012, at 21:52, Dave U. Random > wrote: > > > Polytropon wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:47:11 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > >>> Having to pay Verisign instead of Microsoft makes no difference: the > >>> point is why should I have to pay anything

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

Mark Felder wrote: > Yes, let's all run ALPHA and MIPS hardware. I'll just jam my Nvidia card > into one of the available slots and everything should work OK, right? Dear Numbskull, It's co-dependent hostages like you who enable Intel Mafiaware. According to your logic we should all be using

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

> > (cf. EULA) that you accept those "licensing of hardware". > Also, I think you'll find that such actions are already illegal > certainly in the UK, and I believe EU wide. Yes illegal for English law (England & Scotland have different contract laws). Contract terms given after money changes ha

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Wed Jun 6 19:01:14 2012 > From: Chuck Swiger > Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 16:59:36 -0700 > To: Robert Bonomi > Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be > aware o

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Jun 6, 2012, at 4:54 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote: [ ... ] > It may seem reasonable to you, but is there -legal- basis to do so? Go ask your lawyer. freebsd-questions isn't qualified to provide you with legal advice. Regards, -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-qu

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Wed Jun 6 18:13:09 2012 > Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 00:09:54 +0100 > From: Bruce Cran > To: Robert Bonomi > Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware > of? &g

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

> > Contract penalty clause maybe ? Lawyers ? > > A limited-liability company with no assets is judgement-proof. There's set up & running costs (time & money), & other exposure http://berklix.com/~jhs/mecc/ltd_gmbh.html Easiest done by those who have done it before, One wo

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On 06/06/2012 20:27, Robert Bonomi wrote: Suppose I put up a web app that takes an executable as input, signs it with my key, and returns the signed filt to the submitter. I don't divulge the key to anyone, just use it on 'anything'. Anybody attempting to revoke on _that_ basis is asking for a

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On 6 Jun 2012, at 21:52, Dave U. Random wrote: > Polytropon wrote: > >> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:47:11 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: >>> Having to pay Verisign instead of Microsoft makes no difference: the >>> point is why should I have to pay anything to a third party in order to >>> run whatev

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

Wojciech Puchar wrote: > anyway NOBODY are forced to buy micro-soft software. That's almost correct but not quite. In 99% of the cases any Intel commodity mafiaware comes with a preinstalled Winblows. You're paying for it whether you want it or not. You can get a refund in many cases but it's mo

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 02:23:20PM +0200, Damien Fleuriot wrote: > > I agree with the whole post except that last bit about ICANN Matthew. > > The US already has enough dominance as is, without involving ICANN, a > supposedly neutral body (yeah right...) any further. Indeed. The last thing we n

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Dave U. Random wrote: > Polytropon wrote: > >> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:47:11 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: >> > Having to pay Verisign instead of Microsoft makes no difference: the >> > point is why should I have to pay anything to a third party in order to >> > run

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?]

On 2012-06-06 15:05, Jerry wrote: On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:49:53 -0400 Daniel Staal articulated: I don't believe at this point FreeBSD has any intent one way or another, really. It's not an immediate problem for any platform supported by the FreeBSD project, at least for a technically-inclined u

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?]

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 15:55:16 -0400 Robert Simmons articulated: >On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Jerry wrote: >> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:49:53 -0400 >> Daniel Staal articulated: >> >>>On 2012-06-05 17:20, Jerry wrote: >>> The question that I have not seen answered in this thread is what Fr

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

Yes, let's all run ALPHA and MIPS hardware. I'll just jam my Nvidia card into one of the available slots and everything should work OK, right? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

Polytropon wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:47:11 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > > Having to pay Verisign instead of Microsoft makes no difference: the > > point is why should I have to pay anything to a third party in order to > > run whatever OS I want on a piece of hardware I own? It's time to

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?]

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Jerry wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:49:53 -0400 > Daniel Staal articulated: > >>On 2012-06-05 17:20, Jerry wrote: >> >>> The question that I have not seen answered in this thread is what >>> FreeBSD intents to do. From what I have seen, most FreeBSD users do >>> n

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 13:44:57 -0500, Damien Fleuriot wrote: If the key should be divulged, then the key may be revoked by the issuer. Revoked how? Wouldn't they have to issue a firmware update to actually revoke it? The UEFI firmware doesn't have network access _

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Damien Fleuriot wrote: On 6/6/12 6:45 PM, Daniel Feenberg wrote: On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Julian H. Stacey wrote: I do wonder about that. What incentive does the possesor of a signing key have to keep it secret? Contract penalty clause maybe ? Lawyers ? A limited-liab

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Wed Jun 6 13:46:43 2012 > Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:44:57 +0200 > From: Damien Fleuriot > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware > of? > > > > On

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?]

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:49:53 -0400 Daniel Staal articulated: >On 2012-06-05 17:20, Jerry wrote: > >> The question that I have not seen answered in this thread is what >> FreeBSD intents to do. From what I have seen, most FreeBSD users do >> not >> use the latest versions of most hardware, so it m

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On 6/6/12 7:23 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote: > "Julian H. Stacey" wrote: >> >>> I do wonder about that. What incentive does the possesor of a signing key >>> have to keep it secret? >> >> Contract penalty clause maybe ? Lawyers ? > > Contract with _whom_? The party you pay money to -- Verisign --

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On 6/6/12 6:45 PM, Daniel Feenberg wrote: > > > On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > >>> I do wonder about that. What incentive does the possesor of a signing >>> key >>> have to keep it secret? >> >> Contract penalty clause maybe ? Lawyers ? > > A limited-liability company with no a

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On 06/06/2012 17:21, Polytropon wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:47:11 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: >> Having to pay Verisign instead of Microsoft makes no difference: the >> point is why should I have to pay anything to a third party in order to >> run whatever OS I want on a piece of hardware I ow

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

"Julian H. Stacey" wrote: > > > I do wonder about that. What incentive does the possesor of a signing key > > have to keep it secret? > > Contract penalty clause maybe ? Lawyers ? Contract with _whom_? The party you pay money to -- Verisign -- simply certifies that the party buying the certif

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

Maybe a common marketing and sales model comes from software to hardware too: You don't actually own the hardware! When you give money to the manufacturer (maybe through vendors or retailers), you receive hardware _plus_ a limited set of rights which you may exercise on that hardware, maybe for a

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Julian H. Stacey wrote: I do wonder about that. What incentive does the possesor of a signing key have to keep it secret? Contract penalty clause maybe ? Lawyers ? A limited-liability company with no assets is judgement-proof. Otherwise one of us would purchase a key

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?]

On 2012-06-05 17:20, Jerry wrote: The question that I have not seen answered in this thread is what FreeBSD intents to do. From what I have seen, most FreeBSD users do not use the latest versions of most hardware, so it may be a while before its user base is even effected. I don't believe at

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

> I do wonder about that. What incentive does the possesor of a signing key > have to keep it secret? Contract penalty clause maybe ? Lawyers ? Otherwise one of us would purchase a key for $99, & then publish the key so we could all forever more compile & boot our own kernels. But that would pr

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:47:11 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > Having to pay Verisign instead of Microsoft makes no difference: the > point is why should I have to pay anything to a third party in order to > run whatever OS I want on a piece of hardware I own? Maybe a common marketing and sales model

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

RW wrote: > On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 07:36:24 -0400 > Jerry wrote: > > > > In any event, it won't belong before some hacker comes up with a way > > to circumvent the entire process anyway, > > It sounds like Fedora already have. They say that they are only going to > sign a thin shim that loads grub.

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 07:36:24 -0400 Jerry wrote: > In any event, it won't belong before some hacker comes up with a way > to circumvent the entire process anyway, It sounds like Fedora already have. They say that they are only going to sign a thin shim that loads grub.

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On 6/6/12 1:57 AM, Chris Hill wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, G?k?in Akdeniz wrote: > >> For the time being only ARM platform is restricted. > > True, but I would be astonished if this restriction were not expanded by > MS in the future. Just my opinion, but I believe their ultimate goal is > to a

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On 6/5/12 9:12 PM, Gökşin Akdeniz wrote: >> >> UEFI considerations drive Fedora to pay MSFT to sign their kernel >> binaries http://cwonline.computerworld.com/t/8035515/1292406/565573/0/ >> > > That's restriction is only for ARM devices which have a label that says > "Desgined for Windows8". In

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On 6/6/12 1:19 PM, Daniel Feenberg wrote: > > > On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Matthew Seaman wrote: > >> On 05/06/2012 23:10, Jerry wrote: >>> I thought this URL also shown >>> above, answered that question. >> >> Signing bootloaders and kernels etc. seems superf

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On 6/6/12 9:32 AM, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 05/06/2012 23:10, Jerry wrote: >> I thought this URL also shown >> above, answered that question. > > Signing bootloaders and kernels etc. seems superficially like a good > idea to me. However, instant reacti

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On 6/6/12 1:36 PM, Jerry wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:47:11 +0100 > Matthew Seaman articulated: > >> On 06/06/2012 11:24, Jerry wrote: >>> I think you are in error there Matthew. From what I have read The $99 >>> goes to Verisign, not Microsoft - further once paid you can sign as >>> many bina

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:47:11 +0100 Matthew Seaman articulated: >On 06/06/2012 11:24, Jerry wrote: >> I think you are in error there Matthew. From what I have read The $99 >> goes to Verisign, not Microsoft - further once paid you can sign as >> many binaries as you want. > >Having to pay Verisign

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:47 AM, Matthew Seaman < m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote: > On 06/06/2012 11:24, Jerry wrote: > > I think you are in error there Matthew. From what I have read The $99 > > goes to Verisign, not Microsoft - further once paid you can sign as > > many binaries as you wa

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Matthew Seaman wrote: On 05/06/2012 23:10, Jerry wrote: I thought this URL also shown above, answered that question. Signing bootloaders and kernels etc. seems superficially like a good idea to me. However, instant reaction is th

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On 06/06/2012 11:24, Jerry wrote: > I think you are in error there Matthew. From what I have read The $99 > goes to Verisign, not Microsoft - further once paid you can sign as > many binaries as you want. Having to pay Verisign instead of Microsoft makes no difference: the point is why should I ha

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On 06/06/2012 11:38, Bruce Cran wrote: It's not the $99 that'll be the problem, but the fact that it's Verisign (actually Symantec, since they bought Verisign) that you deal with. Whereas Globalsign accept applications from individuals, Verisign require company documents before they'll generate

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On 06/06/2012 11:24, Jerry wrote: They should have taken this into account a long time ago. In any case, we are talking $99 dollars total, not per user here for the certificate. If that is going to cause a problem, I'll donate the $99. It's not the $99 that'll be the problem, but the fact that

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:38:41 +0100 Matthew Seaman articulated: >On 06/06/2012 09:45, Bruce Cran wrote: >> On 06/06/2012 08:32, Matthew Seaman wrote: >>> On deeper thought though, the whole idea appears completely >>> unworkable. It means that you will not be able to compile your own >>> kernel or

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

jerr...@msu.edu wrote: > Quoting Kurt Buff : > > > UEFI considerations drive Fedora to pay MSFT to sign their kernel binaries > > http://cwonline.computerworld.com/t/8035515/1292406/565573/0/ > > > > This would seem to make compiling from source difficult. > > > > I don't see how this MS scam is

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:38 AM, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 06/06/2012 09:45, Bruce Cran wrote: > > On 06/06/2012 08:32, Matthew Seaman wrote: > >> On deeper thought though, the whole idea appears completely unworkable. > >> It means that you will not be able to compile your own kernel or > >> d

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On 06/06/2012 09:45, Bruce Cran wrote: > On 06/06/2012 08:32, Matthew Seaman wrote: >> On deeper thought though, the whole idea appears completely unworkable. >> It means that you will not be able to compile your own kernel or >> drivers unless you have access to a signing key. As building your

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On 06/06/2012 08:32, Matthew Seaman wrote: On deeper thought though, the whole idea appears completely unworkable. It means that you will not be able to compile your own kernel or drivers unless you have access to a signing key. As building your own is pretty fundamental to the FreeBSD project

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On 05/06/2012 23:10, Jerry wrote: > I thought this URL also shown > above, answered that question. Signing bootloaders and kernels etc. seems superficially like a good idea to me. However, instant reaction is that this is definitely *not* something that Mi

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Jun 5, 2012 6:35 PM, "Mike Jeays" wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 19:57:30 -0400 (EDT) > Chris Hill wrote: > > > On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, G?k?in Akdeniz wrote: > > > > > For the time being only ARM platform is restricted. > > > > True, but I would be astonished if this restriction were not expanded b

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 19:57:30 -0400 (EDT) Chris Hill wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, G?k?in Akdeniz wrote: > > > For the time being only ARM platform is restricted. > > True, but I would be astonished if this restriction were not expanded by > MS in the future. Just my opinion, but I believe their

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, G?k?in Akdeniz wrote: For the time being only ARM platform is restricted. True, but I would be astonished if this restriction were not expanded by MS in the future. Just my opinion, but I believe their ultimate goal is to add platforms until the "secure boot" restriction

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Jerry wrote: On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:00:14 -0400 (EDT) Daniel Feenberg articulated: On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Polytropon wrote: On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:19:26 -0700, Kurt Buff wrote: UEFI considerations drive Fedora to pay MSFT to sign their kernel binaries http://cwonline.comput

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:00:14 -0400 (EDT) Daniel Feenberg articulated: >On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Polytropon wrote: > >> On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:19:26 -0700, Kurt Buff wrote: >>> UEFI considerations drive Fedora to pay MSFT to sign their kernel >>> binaries >>> http://cwonline.computerworld.com/t/8035515/12

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?]

On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 13:19:00 -0700 Colin Barnabas articulated: >History show us that _everything_ will eventually run *nix. Perhaps, but *nix will not run everything. >Take a look at the Sony PS3 debacle. After Sony yanked support for >installing other OS's, the community ripped apart their >hype

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Polytropon wrote: On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:19:26 -0700, Kurt Buff wrote: UEFI considerations drive Fedora to pay MSFT to sign their kernel binaries http://cwonline.computerworld.com/t/8035515/1292406/565573/0/ I may reply with another link: http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?]

On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:19:26AM -0700, Kurt Buff wrote: > UEFI considerations drive Fedora to pay MSFT to sign their kernel binaries > http://cwonline.computerworld.com/t/8035515/1292406/565573/0/ > > This would seem to make compiling from source difficult. > > Kurt > _

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

> > Not quite. As I understand it, on ARM secure boot will be enabled by > default and users won't have any option of disabling it or adding > their own keys. That is correct. ARM based tablets which have Windows 8 preinstalled will only boot Windows 8. There is no chance of disabling secure bo

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

On 05/06/2012 20:12, Gökşin Akdeniz wrote: That's restriction is only for ARM devices which have a label that says "Desgined for Windows8". In other words those devices can not boot another os except Windows 8 due to secure boot option enabled by default. Not quite. As I understand it, on ARM s

Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?

Quoting Kurt Buff : > UEFI considerations drive Fedora to pay MSFT to sign their kernel binaries > http://cwonline.computerworld.com/t/8035515/1292406/565573/0/ > > This would seem to make compiling from source difficult. > I don't see how this MS scam is even at all legal. It is clearly restrain

  1   2   >