DaemonForums  

Go Back   DaemonForums > DaemonForums.org > News

News News regarding BSD and related.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   (View Single Post)  
Old 25th February 2013
comet--berkeley comet--berkeley is offline
Old programmer/hacker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 90
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Linus Torvalds in NSFW Red Hat rant

Linus Torvalds in NSFW Red Hat rant
X.509 dispute turns XXX as Torvalds says Red Hat wants kinky fun with Redmond


from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02...torvalds_rant/

Quote:
Linux overlord Linus Torvalds has again vented his spleen online, taking on Red Hat employee David Howells with a series of expletive-laden posts on the topic of X.509 public key management standard.

The action takes place on the Linux Kernel Mailing List, with Howell posting a request that Torvalds “pull this
patchset please”.
It seems to involve a scheme where Microsoft would sign Redhat kernel modules for UEFI purposes...
Reply With Quote
  #2   (View Single Post)  
Old 6th March 2013
comet--berkeley comet--berkeley is offline
Old programmer/hacker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 90
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Later in the week, Linus did clarify his thoughts on how UEFI and secure boot should work for Linux:

http://www.zdnet.com/torvalds-clarif...on-7000011918/

Now that FreeBSD has stepped into the UEFI ring:

http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=38206

I think it is important to focus on "how" secure boot for UEFI should be used for BSD, not just how it should be used for Microsoft.

Linus thinks that the user should be able to sign their own modules and put their own keys into the PC BIOS.
Reply With Quote
  #3   (View Single Post)  
Old 6th March 2013
J65nko J65nko is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Budel - the Netherlands
Posts: 3,142
Thanked 182 Times in 149 Posts
Default

I don't have any UEFI hardware with Secure Boot, but if I had, I would file a complaint at the European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cons...ntacts_en.html instead of kowtow'ing to Microsoft.
__________________
You don't need to be a genius to debug a pf.conf firewall ruleset, you just need the guts to run tcpdump

Last edited by J65nko; 6th March 2013 at 08:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4   (View Single Post)  
Old 7th March 2013
rocket357's Avatar
rocket357 rocket357 is offline
Real Name: Jonathon
Wannabe OpenBSD porter
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 322
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Default

My wife's machine is UEFI. It took a bit, but I found the BIOS setting to disable it.

Makes me wonder how long it will be before that setting conveniently "disappears".
__________________
Linux Admin by Profession. OpenBSD user by choice.
Reply With Quote
  #5   (View Single Post)  
Old 7th March 2013
IdOp's Avatar
IdOp IdOp is offline
Too dumb for a smartphone
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: twisting on the daemon's fork(2)
Posts: 562
Thanked 14 Times in 13 Posts
Default

The European commission sure has had a lot of success getting Microsoft to increase browser choices.
Reply With Quote
  #6   (View Single Post)  
Old 8th March 2013
comet--berkeley comet--berkeley is offline
Old programmer/hacker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 90
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J65nko View Post
I don't have any UEFI hardware with Secure Boot, but if I had, I would file a complaint at the European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cons...ntacts_en.html instead of kowtow'ing to Microsoft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdOp View Post
The European commission sure has had a lot of success getting Microsoft to increase browser choices.
Actually the commission just fined Microsoft for 561 million euros which is about 734 million US dollars.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...or?INTCMP=SRCH

Last edited by comet--berkeley; 8th March 2013 at 03:29 AM. Reason: spacing
Reply With Quote
  #7   (View Single Post)  
Old 8th March 2013
IdOp's Avatar
IdOp IdOp is offline
Too dumb for a smartphone
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: twisting on the daemon's fork(2)
Posts: 562
Thanked 14 Times in 13 Posts
Default

comet--berkeley, You're quite right. I had seen the headline of a similar article at the time of that fine, and without reading the article, had just assumed Microsoft had done nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #8   (View Single Post)  
Old 8th March 2013
comet--berkeley comet--berkeley is offline
Old programmer/hacker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 90
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IdOp View Post
comet--berkeley, You're quite right. I had seen the headline of a similar article at the time of that fine, and without reading the article, had just assumed Microsoft had done nothing.
You may still be correct IdOp. Just because Microsoft has to pay a fine does not mean that they will actually make other browsers more available...

Time will tell if Microsoft actually does anything.
Reply With Quote
  #9   (View Single Post)  
Old 8th March 2013
IdOp's Avatar
IdOp IdOp is offline
Too dumb for a smartphone
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: twisting on the daemon's fork(2)
Posts: 562
Thanked 14 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by comet--berkeley View Post
You may still be correct IdOp. Just because Microsoft has to pay a fine does not mean that they will actually make other browsers more available...

Time will tell if Microsoft actually does anything.
Well, according to that article (if I've read it right) MicroSoft did initially (in 2009) comply with the EC, and many browsers were downloaded through Windows that way. Then in their Win7 Service Pack 1, they goofed up and de-activated the browser choice menu, leading to this fine after they came forward with the error.

All that said, again according to the article, it took the EC from early 2000's to 2009 (let's say 5+ years) to get MS to agree. That's a lot of time, and money spent on lawyers. If the secure boot / UEFI thing goes this way, such a delay could lead to a lot of pain for the non-Windows PC users while the process plays out. Hopefully the threat of this process, with browsers as a precedent, might make MS more willing to be helpful.

I don't know if there's a better way. I'm not technically knowledgeable on how it works, just find it an interesting topic to follow as it affects PCs significantly. Thanks for linking the article as it prompted me to finally read about the fine. It's funny I didn't read the other similar article because I usually like to read about things where MicroSoft was bad.
Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2013
shep shep is offline
ISO Quartermaster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Dry and Dusty
Posts: 589
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Quote:
You may still be correct IdOp. Just because Microsoft has to pay a fine does not mean that they will actually make other browsers more available...
Sometimes this is viewed as a cost of doing business.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
rant: ovh.net jggimi Off-Topic 0 14th February 2013 12:40 AM
MassEffect 3, Wine, and EA...a rant. xmorg Off-Topic 24 2nd April 2012 11:53 AM
Linus Torvalds calls Linux 'bloated and huge' vermaden News 5 31st March 2010 10:33 PM
Torvalds attacks IT industry 'security circus' roddierod Off-Topic 17 6th September 2008 02:03 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content copyright © 2007-2010, the authors
Daemon image copyright ©1988, Marshall Kirk McKusick