On 09/25/2013 01:29 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Yasha Karant ykar...@csusb.edu wrote:
As it turns out, a colleague was able to install a different Linux distro on
a UEFI secure boot motherboard, despite an initial failure, a distro that
other respondents to the SL
/mb_manual_ga-970a-ud3_e.pdf
From reading the manual:
- this mobo uses an external TPM module (consider removing it if present)
- it talks about installing Windows XP and Windows 7 (no secure boot in
Windows XP)
- no mention of secure boot
- no mention of UEFI (talks about EFI for booting from GPT
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
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
, supported for those who have an Ubuntu-compatible
support contract, then my colleague did try it, and found it would not
reliably work on the specific aftermarket generic motherboard he was
attempting to use. The specific board did work for MS Win 8 using UEFI
Secure Boot (the vendor lock
On 25 September 2013 16:35, Yasha Karant ykar...@csusb.edu wrote:
snip
Again, my apologies for the length -- is a snip within a reply appropriate
for this list using the same subject line (same thread)?
snip
Yes, most certainly.
Alan.
As it turns out, a colleague was able to install a different Linux
distro on a UEFI secure boot motherboard, despite an initial failure, a
distro that other respondents to the SL list did mention as supporting
UEFI Secure Boot. There are certain peculiarities involved, including
the use
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Yasha Karant ykar...@csusb.edu wrote:
As it turns out, a colleague was able to install a different Linux distro on
a UEFI secure boot motherboard, despite an initial failure, a distro that
other respondents to the SL list did mention as supporting UEFI Secure
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
directions.
Note: You might not even find a secure boot option anywhere. You might
not even find an option under “Security.” The below image shows the
option as “UEFI Boot” under the “Boot” menu. Keep your eyes peeled for
anything containing the words “Secure boot” and “UEFI.”
As can be seen
secure boat if the UEFI actually
permits this to be disabled (I have heard of some UEFI implementations
that do not permit secure boot truly to be disabled).
If the system is Windows 8 logo compatible and is x86_4 then a way to
disable secure boot must be provided by the hardware vendor
).
Evidently, the current answer for SL is that it is not UEFI Secure Boot
enabled, and SL 6x cannot reliably be installed upon such systems --
depending upon the quirks (or proprietary generosity) of the actual BIOS
supplier.
Yasha Karant
On 09/24/2013 09:04 AM, Connie Sieh wrote:
On Tue, 24
).
Evidently, the current answer for SL is that it is not UEFI Secure Boot
enabled, and SL 6x cannot reliably be installed upon such systems --
depending upon the quirks (or proprietary generosity) of the actual BIOS
supplier.
Yasha Karant
On 09/24/2013 09:04 AM, Connie Sieh wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2013
, commercial, supported, production
Linux base).
Evidently, the current answer for SL is that it is not UEFI Secure Boot
enabled, and SL 6x cannot reliably be installed upon such systems --
depending upon the quirks (or proprietary generosity) of the actual BIOS
supplier.
OpenSuSE supports secure boot
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
in
alpha or beta release. Check out
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/18/html-single/UEFI_Secure_Boot_Guide/index.htmlfor
a good breakdown of the issues and trade-offs.
UEFI is part of the old Palladium project from Microsoft, relabeled as
Trusted Computing. It is aimed squarely at DRM
.
UEFI is part of the old Palladium project from Microsoft, relabeled as
Trusted Computing. It is aimed squarely at DRM and vendor lock-in, not
security, for reasons that I could spend a whole day discussing.In the
meantime, yes, you can disalbe it for SL booting if needed, and reasonably
expect our
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 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 any
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 pho...@fnal.gov
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
On 20 October 2011 04:19, Always Learning scienti...@u61.u22.net 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
Try Dawson posted a note about the Scientific Linux mailing list on
July 1, 2011. I am posting part of his note here because I see some
new faces who probably have not read it. Also for those who have
been on the list for a while, this is a reminder.
Akemi
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
from
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Thomas Bendler
thomas.bend...@gmail.com 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
On 20 October 2011 15:58, Akemi Yagi amy...@gmail.com wrote:
Troy Dawson posted a note about the Scientific Linux mailing list on
July 1, 2011. I am posting part of his note here because I see some
new faces who probably have not read it. Also for those who have
been on the list for a while,
.
The reason I posted this item -- a reason that no one has yet addressed
-- was twofold:
1. To stop the current UEFI approach so that licensed-for-fee
environments, such as Linux or BSD, can be installed on any hardware
platform. This does involve getting the community to be aware of the
problem
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 know
On 2011/10/20 08:10, Tom H wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Thomas Bendler
thomas.bend...@gmail.com 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
I apologize for the length of the popular press article that I am
posting below -- however, the issue of MS controlling UEFI and thus
preventing one from booting/installing Linux (or BSD or .. other than MS
or presumably Mac OS X on an Apple branded machine) is significant and
the article hits
Thank you very much for alerting everyone to this latest distressing
danger from Micro$oft.
--
With best regards,
Paul.
England,
EU.
Microsoft does not control UEFI. While they are (rightfully) mandating Secure
Boot as part of the Windows 8 certification process, they are not mandating
that it remain always on. The OEM/VARs should be providing a UEFI configuration
option to disable Secure Boot.
At the end of the day
On 10/19/2011 04:49 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Thank you very much for alerting everyone to this latest distressing
danger from Micro$oft.
--
With best regards,
Paul.
England,
EU.
The Free Software Foundation (GNU) is attempting to stop this latest
profiteering from MS.
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
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 'extras
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
is, or
to get Linux running smoothly on Hyper-V, for
example. There is no need to cry conspiracy for UEFI Secure Boot - it solves
a very real security problem for the vast majority of end-users. Technically
minded users, again, can *shut it off*, or choose a vendor who will not play
games with a user's
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?
operating
environment legally can be used on the hardware. In particular, under the
UEFI restrictions, given that a licensed-for-free system such as Linux
(including SL and other EL clones) may not have a key recognized by the
hardware if the only keys the hardware vendor provides
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 agrees with
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
statements to
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
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 scienti...@u61.u22.net wrote:
On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 22:01 -0500, Phong Nguyen wrote:
On 19 Oct 2011, at
) to
select whatever operating environment legally can be used on the
hardware. In particular, under the UEFI restrictions, given that a
licensed-for-free system such as Linux (including SL and other EL
clones) may not have a key recognized by the hardware if the only
keys the hardware vendor provides
in order to boot open systems environments upon hardware
that is UEFI keyed to MS Windows (or Apple Mac OS X or ... , but not
necessarily the choice of the user)?
Yasha Karant
On 10/19/2011 10:07 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Phong Nguyenpho...@fnal.gov 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
/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html-single/Installation_Guide/index.html#Making_Minimal_Boot_Media-UEFI
Thank you, that page was exactly what I needed. Didn't consider that I might
need alternate boot media.
Is there any known reason for this? Is it undesirable for some reason
Thank you, that page was exactly what I needed. Didn't consider that I might
need alternate boot media.
Is there any known reason for this? Is it undesirable for some reason to have
UEFI available by default? (basically, are there any gotcha's I need to look
out for?)
Adam Bishop
JANET(UK
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.
I'm struggling to find documentation on this (even from TUV), so
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Adam Bishop adam.bis...@ja.net 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
52 matches
Mail list logo
