On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Adam Bishop wrote:
> Good Morning,
>
> I am attempting to install SL 6.1 on a UEFI-capable machine, however it is
> not booting the DVD.
>
> Checking the installation media, there is a /EFI/BOOT/ folder, but it does
> not contain a BOOTX64.EFI file as required.
>
p
JANET(UK)
From: Akemi Yagi [amy...@gmail.com]
Sent: 12 August 2011 17:35
To: Adam Bishop
Cc: scientific-linux-users@listserv.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: UEFI
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Adam Bishop wrote:
> Good Morning,
>
> I am attempting to
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Adam Bishop wrote:
> From: Akemi Yagi [amy...@gmail.com]
> I can confirm that the BOOTX64.EFI file is not on the installation
> media. To get around the issue for now, you might want to try the
> procedure documented here:
>
> http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/R
Thank you very much for alerting everyone to this latest distressing
danger from Micro$oft.
--
With best regards,
Paul.
England,
EU.
Microsoft does not control UEFI. While they are (rightfully) mandating Secure
Boot as part of the Windows 8 certification process, they are not mandating
that it remain always on. The OEM/VARs should be providing a UEFI configuration
option to disable Secure Boot.
"At the end of the day, the c
On 10/19/2011 04:49 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Thank you very much for alerting everyone to this latest distressing
danger from Micro$oft.
--
With best regards,
Paul.
England,
EU.
The Free Software Foundation (GNU) is attempting to stop this latest
profiteering from MS.
http://www.fsf.org/c
On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 19:44 -0500, Phong Nguyen wrote:
> The OEM/VARs should be providing a UEFI configuration option
> to disable Secure Boot.
"should" is not MUST.
Who will compel the Far East PCB manufacturers to introduce 'extras' NOT
required to run Windoze 8 ?
> "At the end of the day, t
On 19 Oct 2011, at 1951, Always Learning wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 19:44 -0500, Phong Nguyen wrote:
>
>> The OEM/VARs should be providing a UEFI configuration option
>> to disable Secure Boot.
>
> "should" is not MUST.
>
> Who will compel the Far East PCB manufacturers to introduce 'extra
On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 20:03 -0500, Phong Nguyen wrote:
> On 19 Oct 2011, at 1951, Always Learning wrote:
>
> > Who will compel the Far East PCB manufacturers to introduce 'extras' NOT
> > required to run Windoze 8 ?
> It isn't an "extra", any more than providing an option to change a boot disk
On 19 Oct 2011, at 2019, Always Learning wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 20:03 -0500, Phong Nguyen wrote:
>
>> On 19 Oct 2011, at 1951, Always Learning wrote:
>>
>>> Who will compel the Far East PCB manufacturers to introduce 'extras' NOT
>>> required to run Windoze 8 ?
>
>> It isn't an "extra",
On 10/19/2011 07:14 PM, Phong Nguyen wrote:
On 19 Oct 2011, at 2019, Always Learning wrote:
On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 20:03 -0500, Phong Nguyen wrote:
On 19 Oct 2011, at 1951, Always Learning wrote:
Who will compel the Far East PCB manufacturers to introduce 'extras' NOT
required to run Windoze
I do not want to indulge in a prolonged discourse.
On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 21:14 -0500, Phong Nguyen wrote:
> Microsoft is more interested in true competition these days, not the
> least to get the EU and US DOJ off their backs. Note that they have
> contributed quite a bit of code to the kernel
On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 19:38 -0700, Yasha Karant wrote:
> Although this discussion is socio-political, and thus outside the
> nominal items on this list, the reality of Microsoft is that of an
> entrenched monopolist ..
I concur !
On 19 Oct 2011, at 2139, Always Learning wrote:
> I do not want to indulge in a prolonged discourse.
>
Then why persist in such argumentation, sir? Do you expect to make statements
to an echo-chamber in which everyone agrees with what you say?
On 19 Oct 2011, at 2138, Yasha Karant wrote:
>
> Although this discussion is socio-political, and thus outside the nominal
> items on this list, the reality of Microsoft is that of an entrenched
> monopolist, of which charge Microsoft has been convicted in several
> governments. Microsoft exis
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:01:19PM -0500, Phong Nguyen wrote:
> On 19 Oct 2011, at 2139, Always Learning wrote:
>
> > I do not want to indulge in a prolonged discourse.
> >
> Then why persist in such argumentation, sir? Do you expect to make
> statements to an echo-chamber in which everyone agree
On 19 Oct 2011, at 2202, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:01:19PM -0500, Phong Nguyen wrote:
>> On 19 Oct 2011, at 2139, Always Learning wrote:
>>
>>> I do not want to indulge in a prolonged discourse.
>>>
>> Then why persist in such argumentation, sir? Do you expect to make
>>
On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 20:02 -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> S, what do you guys think of ScientificLinux?
>
> Ray
I can NOT install it despite buying two DVDs of SL 6.1 A64. I've tried
again and again. Was meaning to write about my experience.
Regards,
Paul,
England,EU.
On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 22:01 -0500, Phong Nguyen wrote:
> There is no proof that Microsoft is trying to stamp out alternative
> operating systems with such tactics and direct statements by
> high-level personnel that they, in fact, are not trying to.
Since when has any terrorist, murderer or mass
On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 22:01 -0500, Phong Nguyen wrote:
> On 19 Oct 2011, at 2139, Always Learning wrote:
>
> > I do not want to indulge in a prolonged discourse.
> >
> Then why persist in such argumentation, sir? Do you expect to make statements
> to an echo-chamber in which everyone agrees wit
Would you all _please_ take this off list? Discussions like these do not belong
here.
Thanks,
Dan
Ps. Sorry about the top posting, it's the app.
Sent from tablet-land
Always Learning wrote:
>On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 22:01 -0500, Phong Nguyen wrote:
>
>> On 19 Oct 2011, at 2139, Always Learning
On 10/19/2011 08:01 PM, Phong Nguyen wrote:
On 19 Oct 2011, at 2138, Yasha Karant wrote:
Although this discussion is socio-political, and thus outside the
nominal items on this list, the reality of Microsoft is that of an
entrenched monopolist, of which charge Microsoft has been convicted
in se
On 10/19/2011 08:26 PM, Dan M. wrote:
Would you all _please_ take this off list? Discussions like these do not belong
here.
Thanks,
Dan
Ps. Sorry about the top posting, it's the app.
Sent from tablet-land
Always Learning wrote:
On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 22:01 -0500, Phong Nguyen wrote:
On 1
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Phong Nguyen wrote:
> What does Microsoft gain by locking down a PC? Casual users are not going to
> install alternative operating systems anyways. Technically proficient users
> will only be encouraged to find ways to break the secure boot process (for a
> re
On 10/19/2011 10:07 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Phong Nguyen wrote:
What does Microsoft gain by locking down a PC? Casual users are not going to
install alternative operating systems anyways. Technically proficient users
will only be encouraged to find ways
Please, guys! Surely there's a better place to have this discussion? I
do not want the same boring old arguments clogging up my inbox every
time M$ sneezes.
2011/10/20 Phong Nguyen
> Microsoft does not control UEFI. While they are (rightfully) mandating
> Secure Boot as part of the Windows 8 certification process, they are not
> mandating that it remain always on. The OEM/VARs should be providing a UEFI
> configuration option to disable Secure Boot.
On 20 October 2011 04:19, Always Learning wrote:
> Wise people, before disagreeing, usually become informed especially if
> the subject matter is unknown to them. One should disagree (or agree)
> only when possessing sufficient information to make a balanced
> judgement.
This is completely off-t
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Thomas Bendler
wrote:
>
> Secure boot is simply a design mistake. Instead of giving everyone the
> opportunity to upload own certificates to the certificate store (like
> browsers do), they implemented a hard coded list of certificates so that
> only a few systems
On 10/20/2011 08:10 AM, Tom H wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Thomas Bendler
wrote:
Secure boot is simply a design mistake. Instead of giving everyone the
opportunity to upload own certificates to the certificate store (like
browsers do), they implemented a hard coded list of certific
On Oct 20, 2011, at 17:47 , Yasha Karant wrote:
[more stuff with no bearing on SL whatsoever]
Could this person please be banned from the list.
Thanks,
Stephan
On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 18:02 +0200, Stephan Wiesand wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2011, at 17:47 , Yasha Karant wrote:
>
> [more stuff with no bearing on SL whatsoever]
>
> Could this person please be banned from the list.
>
> Thanks,
> Stephan
(Apologies for the noise, but as a mail list admin, I k
On 2011/10/20 08:10, Tom H wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Thomas Bendler
wrote:
Secure boot is simply a design mistake. Instead of giving everyone the
opportunity to upload own certificates to the certificate store (like
browsers do), they implemented a hard coded list of certificate
On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Yasha Karant wrote:
A colleague who uses SuSE non-enterprise for his professional
(enterprise) workstations has now attempted to load the latest SuSE on a
machine with a new generic (aftermarket) "gamer" UEFI X86-64
motherboard. It does not properly boot. I do not have an
Secure boot is enabled. Evidently, the only means to disable secure
boot requires that a secure boot loader/configuration program be running
-- e.g., the MS proprietary boot loader (typically, supplied as part of
MS Windows 8) must be used to disable secure boat if the UEFI actually
permits th
See:
http://www.maketecheasier.com/disable-secure-boot-in-windows-8/2013/02/25
from which:
7. Once the computer starts up, you’ll need to access your BIOS. To do
it, you have to press “Delete,” “F1,” or “F2″, depending on your
computer, on your keyboard as soon as the computer begins its powe
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Yasha Karant wrote:
Secure boot is enabled. Evidently, the only means to disable secure
boot requires that a secure boot loader/configuration program be running
-- e.g., the MS proprietary boot loader (typically, supplied as part of
MS Windows 8) must be used to disable sec
This thread started because my colleague is using SuSE and tried Ubuntu
-- and both failed to secure boot properly from the generic hardware to
which he upgraded. This failure prompted a question about SL (as a
no-fee option for a TUV enterprise, commercial, supported, production
Linux base).
That is correct, SL and TUV do not support secure boot at this time.
This link is a year old, and I am sure more support it by now, but:
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20522.html
I'm sure a more up to date list can be found with moderate searching.
On 09/24/2013 11:46 AM, Yasha Karant wrote:
Thi
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Yasha Karant wrote:
This thread started because my colleague is using SuSE and tried Ubuntu
-- and both failed to secure boot properly from the generic hardware to
which he upgraded. This failure prompted a question about SL (as a
no-fee option for a TUV enterprise, commerc
To be specific, my colleague is using the licensed-for-free binary
download of current OpenSuSE that nominally supports UEFI Secure Boot --
and it does not work in fact on the hardware he has. He did experiment
with a licensed copy of MS Win 8, and it would install on the same
platform without
Down, boy.
Scientific Linux is behind the times on available tools, because our
favorite upstream vendor has not yet released tools. Tools to work with
have been tested, effectively, with Fedora, and I expect our favorite
upstream vendor will include tools with release 7.x, which is not yet in
alp
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
--001a11c379ecc5abcb04e7297e9d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Down, boy.
Scientific Linux is behind the times on available tools, because our
favorite upstream vendor has not yet released tools. Tools to work with
have been tested,
Let me see if I understand the current situation. This question was
prompted by the question of a colleague attempting to use OpenSuSE (not
SL nor TUV) on UEFI Secure Boot who was not able to get a reliably
booted running operating environment. The colleague wondered if SL
would fare better.
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Yasha Karant wrote:
Let me see if I understand the current situation. This question was
prompted by the question of a colleague attempting to use OpenSuSE (not
SL nor TUV) on UEFI Secure Boot who was not able to get a reliably
booted running operating environment. The coll
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Yasha Karant wrote:
To be specific, my colleague is using the licensed-for-free binary
download of current OpenSuSE that nominally supports UEFI Secure Boot --
and it does not work in fact on the hardware he has. He did experiment
with a licensed copy of MS Win 8, and it wo
I apologize for including the entire thread below to respond to just one
point.
quoting:
Ubuntu 12.04.4 LTS should work.
End quote,
As I have not kept current on the Ubuntu (or Debian) Linux efforts, I do
not know the status of the above release. Assuming that it is a
production release, su
On 25 September 2013 16:35, Yasha Karant wrote:
>
>
> Again, my apologies for the length -- is a snip within a reply appropriate
> for this list using the same subject line (same thread)?
>
Yes, most certainly.
Alan.
48 matches
Mail list logo
