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
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
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com 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
Hi,
Reference:
From: C. P. Ghost cpgh...@cordula.ws
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:51:46 +0200
Message-id:
CADGWnjW2LnrtOiXFzWFk9btMaeJhmOTxdZ7ScymY=qgme_c...@mail.gmail.com
C. P. Ghost wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote:
UEFI
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
In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 418, Issue 19, Message: 23
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:56:49 -0400 Jerry je...@seibercom.net 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.
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
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 community
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-source
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 in this
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 City bar
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) etcetera.
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
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 ]
___
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
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 03:27:25 +0200
Damien Fleuriot articulated:
On 9 Jun 2012, at 18:48, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 11:42:37PM +0200, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
On 6 Jun 2012, at 21:52, Dave U. Random
anonym...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net wrote:
Polytropon
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
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.
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
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Bruce Cran br...@cran.org.uk 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. ;-)
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
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
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,
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 11:42:37PM +0200, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
On 6 Jun 2012, at 21:52, Dave U. Random anonym...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net
wrote:
Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:47:11 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
Having to pay Verisign instead of
On 9 Jun 2012, at 18:48, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 11:42:37PM +0200, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
On 6 Jun 2012, at 21:52, Dave U. Random anonym...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net
wrote:
Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:47:11 +0100,
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 replaced by
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 install
On 7 Jun 2012, at 01:54, Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com 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 br...@cran.org.uk
To: Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
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 out with all my
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
have to keep it secret?
Contract
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
On 6/6/12 9:55 PM, Robert Simmons wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Jerry je...@seibercom.net 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
Snippet from Jerry je...@seibercom.net:
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
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
hardly
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. It does
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
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?
On 05/06/2012 23:10, Jerry wrote:
I thought this URL http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html 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
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
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 own
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:38 AM, Matthew Seaman matt...@freebsd.org 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
jerr...@msu.edu wrote:
Quoting Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com:
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
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 drivers
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
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
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 have
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 05/06/2012 23:10, Jerry wrote:
I thought this URL http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html also shown
above, answered that question.
Signing bootloaders and kernels etc. seems superficially like a good
idea to me. However, instant reaction is
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 want.
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 instead
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 binaries as you
On 6/6/12 9:32 AM, Matthew Seaman wrote:
On 05/06/2012 23:10, Jerry wrote:
I thought this URL http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html also shown
above, answered that question.
Signing bootloaders and kernels etc. seems superficially like a good
idea to me. However, instant reaction is
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 http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html also shown
above, answered that question.
Signing bootloaders and kernels etc. seems superficially like a
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 other words
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 add
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.
RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com 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
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
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
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
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
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 assets is
On 6/6/12 7:23 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Julian H. Stacey j...@berklix.com 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 --
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 may be a
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 m...@my.gd
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware
of?
On 6/6/12 7:23 PM, Robert Bonomi
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
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 13:44:57 -0500, Damien Fleuriot m...@my.gd 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
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Jerry je...@seibercom.net 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
Polytropon free...@edvax.de 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?
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
On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 15:55:16 -0400
Robert Simmons articulated:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Jerry je...@seibercom.net 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
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
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Dave U. Random
anonym...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net wrote:
Polytropon free...@edvax.de 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
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 need
Wojciech Puchar woj...@tensor.gdynia.pl 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
On 6 Jun 2012, at 21:52, Dave U. Random anonym...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net
wrote:
Polytropon free...@edvax.de 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
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
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 would
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 br...@cran.org.uk
To: Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be
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
___
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Wed Jun 6 19:01:14 2012
From: Chuck Swiger cswi...@mac.com
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 16:59:36 -0700
To: Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be
(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
hands
Mark Felder f...@feld.me 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
Damien Fleuriot m...@my.gd wrote:
On 6 Jun 2012, at 21:52, Dave U. Random anonym...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net
wrote:
Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:47:11 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
Having to pay Verisign instead of Microsoft makes no difference: the
Alejandro Imass a...@p2ee.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Dave U. Random
anonym...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net wrote:
Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:47:11 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
Having to pay Verisign instead of Microsoft makes no difference:
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 changing
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com 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.
Red Hat is the one that is
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.html
This would seem to make
On 05/06/2012 19:27, Antonio Olivares wrote:
I believe that should be unnecessary. It would only be a matter of
time before someone breaks the M$ layer of poop that is supposed to
prevent folks from booting other OSes other than Window$. They hit
the panic button too soon IMHO.
Press
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 other words those devices can not boot
another os except
Quoting Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com:
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
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
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 boot
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
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:
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
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
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
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
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 19:57:30 -0400 (EDT)
Chris Hill ch...@monochrome.org 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
On Jun 5, 2012 6:35 PM, Mike Jeays mike.je...@rogers.com wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 19:57:30 -0400 (EDT)
Chris Hill ch...@monochrome.org 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
100 matches
Mail list logo
