On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 4:15:43 PM UTC, cooloutac wrote: > On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 12:05:58 PM UTC-4, yura...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 3:56:25 PM UTC, cooloutac wrote: > > > On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 11:34:32 AM UTC-4, yura...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 3:26:05 PM UTC, cooloutac wrote: > > > > > I'll be disappointed but I'm not going to be mad at them for trying > > > > > to get paid, they deserve it. > > > > > > > > > > But I also wouldn't mind if they turned me into a money asset like > > > > > windows so they can keep designing it for home users...lol > > > > > > > > > > I look at things differently. You are referring to linux > > > > > architecture and developers, while I'm referring to the majority of > > > > > its users and community members, as the Product. > > > > > > > > Alright, I respect that, we see some things differently. But the > > > > discussion is good, it does not have to come down to agreeing in the > > > > end. > > > > > > > > I don't like customers being turned into assets though. The way I see > > > > it, it essentially make people "not people" anymore, customer service > > > > is out of the window, it's all about cheating and manipulating people > > > > into making the best use of them, rather than making a fair trade > > > > between a company and a customer. So I kind of black out when I see > > > > business models that turn people into assets, I really, really don't > > > > like that approach. > > > > > > > > But I do really agree that I wouldn't mind Qubes taking a fee, ask for > > > > more donations, or focus partly or entirely on business users. They do > > > > a lot of hard work, and regardless of the target group, the change will > > > > be for the better of humanity. Perhaps it's asking too much for Qubes > > > > to focus on both companies and end-users at the same time, nontheless, > > > > I do hope they can manage to do that. > > > > > > > > It's obvious they had their hands full on Qubes 4 too, so it might just > > > > be that and we're reading too much into the issue here at hand. But > > > > lets see, with time comes answers. I just hope it wiill be in good time > > > > rather the long wait. > > > > > > You are going to be someones asset or product as part of nature, whether > > > you know it or not. > > > > > > The ends justify the means to me. Especially if it means being able to > > > use Qubes or not. > > > > > > I also think its silly to not support secure boot, simply because the > > > idea was created by Microsoft. FSF/Richard Stallman supporters who are > > > against secure boot, is like Bernie supporters not voting for hillary. > > > Seems more spiteful then practical. > > > > Well yeah, only if one allows oneself to become a victim. We can oppose and > > create balance in the world. > > Also secure boot is entirely pointless in a stateless computer. A > > non-stateless computer has a lot of closed source firmware which can be > > either buggy (which closed software have proven to almost always be), and > > backdoored, which is either illegal, can be abused by other than for the > > intended, and is at the fringe limit crossing into the realm of human > > rights. > > > > We don't need closed source firmware, it only creates problems, and no > > benifit or solutions, other than maintaining market shares through force, > > rather than surviving on good customer service and customer support. > > We don't need companies that leech on society. > > > > I gather you think the world is ruled by bullies, and that you think it's > > okay. If so, using that perspective, we just have to become the bullies > > towards to big companies who wants to make use of us. By the end of the > > day, we the people are what matter, humanity matter, not some greedy > > individuals behind a large company. Having said that, I'm not a fanatic > > against big companies, but they must behave, or I'll be against them. > > You can promote change, but we have to work with what we got right now. > > And right now secure boot would of stopped hacking teams insyde bios > attacks, which some experts said could be exploited remotely, and would of > worked on most ami bios as well. Without it whats the point? Why even > bother with Qubes? Like you said hardware has backdoors, and if bios also > has no protections. Whats the point then? > > The problem for me is this is not a cool tech experiment. Its for practical > use.
ah I see, I follow you now. I'm not entirely sure how effective Anti-Evil-Maid is into detecting change in the BIOS/UEFI, perhaps someone can enlighten us on the topic? Can AEM be tricked or bypassed? Practically or theoretically? Though Joanna (head of Qubes) have said it might just be some years, if I remember correctly, before we might see true stateless computers. I'm not sure if anyone with resources would want to commit to such a thing, but it would definitely help us all out. I hope she can convince someone with resources with her goal for a true stateless pc. But meanwhile, we have to live with closed off firmware indeed, and it would be interesting to know how effective and trustworthy AEM is. I suppose it might also be possible to hardware firewall off any incoming signals to the computers BIOS/UEFI, which most routors do by default these days. At this point, it should be a simple matter to have a team to test if any BIOS/UEFI are phoning home. The only way someone can attack a BIOS/UEFI is if they have a leak through the firewall, which be be gained by trojan horses by either user mistakes and hidden software malware. The only other method, would be to have the BIOS/UEFI to phone home regularly, so that it can open up the hardware firewall, and these can be detected easily if someone keeps taps on them. In other words, our BIOS/UEFI should only be exploitable if our firewalls are not set up properly or we make mistakes on the internet. If I'm not mistaken, I don't want to claim to be an expert on this topic, I'm definitely not an expert. But as far as I understand the issue, this is the limit. We should probably try stirrer back on-topic though, this is more Qubes general discussion than Qubes 4 discussion. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to qubes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/055b020f-351d-4469-9a17-07e39fec141e%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.