Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Microsft is Target of Hispalinux over EUFI

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Shadow Gallery
    Beans
    6,807

    Re: Microsft is Target of Hispalinux over EUFI

    Quote Originally Posted by prodigy_ View Post
    Intel doesn't even make operating systems. .
    Just for information, they did create Moblin which they tunred over to the Linux Foundation in 2009.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moblin
    Feel Free to Bitcoin Tip: 135Rp4pwwYTHEJ4u8bxKaDQiC91N9LUoV2

    Backtrack - Giving machine guns to monkeys since 2006
    Kali-Linux - Adding a grenade launcher to the machine guns since 2013

  2. #12
    prodigy_ is offline May the Ubuntu Be With You!
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Beans
    1,219

    Re: Microsft is Target of Hispalinux over EUFI

    Quote Originally Posted by haqking View Post
    Moblin
    And also iRMX. But it was clear from the context that I meant x86 desktop operating systems.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Beans
    175
    Distro
    Ubuntu 14.10 Utopic Unicorn

    Re: Microsft is Target of Hispalinux over EUFI

    Quote Originally Posted by 3rdalbum View Post
    Great idea, bad execution. Microsoft is not responsible for Secure Boot. Intel is.
    What will probably be MOST interesting is if/when the agreement(s)/email/correspondence between Microsoft, Intel and the manufacturers is made public.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Beans
    191
    Distro
    Xubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: Microsft is Target of Hispalinux over EUFI

    Has openSuSE mastered UEFI? Here's from a recent review:

    "I was very surprised, pleased and impressed to find that the openSuSE installer handles UEFI, including Secure Boot, with no trouble at all, including detecting and mounting the EFI boot partition."

    OpenSuSE 12.3: In-depth and hands-on
    http://www.zdnet.com/opensuse-12-3-i...on-7000012698/

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    China
    Beans
    995
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: Microsft is Target of Hispalinux over EUFI

    This is an interesting developing a a valid topic of discussion. Please let's keep a respectful tone towards fellow members and other software companies.
    Fantastic! I'm going to start visiting here more often again. Just what we want robust but polite and open discussion

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Beans
    1,692
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: Microsft is Target of Hispalinux over EUFI

    A useful post from Michael Garrett, who quite likely knows more about this than anyone in this thread. Garrett thinks the Spanish initiative will fail because the Commission has already ruled that Secure Boot conforms to EU law. He also distinguishes between "secure boot" and something he calls "restrictive boot".

    This is not the simplest of issues:

    UEFI is not secure boot.

    Restricted boot is not secure boot.

    Potential boot-time attacks are not an imaginary threat, on Linux or Windows.

    The Secure Boot standard requires OEM's to enable users to disable it and to use their own keys. Some OEM's have not done that.

    Given that OEM's make x86 hardware to sell exclusively into the Windows market, you don't need to conjure conspiracy theories about Evil Microsoft ordering OEM's around. OEM's are catering to the only market, as far as they are concerned, that exists: Windows.

    Microsoft's implementation of secure boot is *not* good for Linux. It *does* strengthen Microsoft's market dominance. But, Linux cannot respond to it appropriately unless the Linux community knows what it is talking about.

    In the longer run, the greater threat to Linux comes from the completely closed and locked-down devices like tablets and phones. Vendors love them and customers don't care, or even notice, that they're locked down. The days of a desktop comprised of interchangeable parts accessible to a user are on the way out. Tomorrow's desktop will consist of discrete, locked-down, components cabled or docked together.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vermont
    Beans
    853
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: Microsft is Target of Hispalinux over EUFI

    Quote Originally Posted by buzzingrobot View Post
    The days of a desktop comprised of interchangeable parts accessible to a user are on the way out. Tomorrow's desktop will consist of discrete, locked-down, components cabled or docked together.
    That's a bleak and depressing thought, but you may well be right. That's certainly been the trend. It's one of the reasons I've learned to despise Jobs and Apple. On other hand, the PC originally started out as a closed and locked down system. It was reverse engineering that busted open the PC. That sort of ingenuity may come about again if, in the future, we are left with nothing more than two or three monopolies.
    Linux: You reap what you tweak.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Western Australia
    Beans
    11,479
    Distro
    Ubuntu 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: Microsft is Target of Hispalinux over EUFI

    Quote Originally Posted by prodigy_ View Post
    Surely you jest. Intel doesn't even make operating systems. They added Secure Boot because MS is their long time partner and otherwise they don't care.
    Got evidence to back it up? Intel has been moving toward the direction of "anti-virus in CPU" for a while now.

    MS is trying to vendor lock everyone else's x86 hardware though. Feel the difference.
    No, it's vendors locking their own hardware to Windows 8 in some cases. There's nothing stopping ANY of them from shipping a Windows 8 computer without Secure Boot. Windows 8 works perfectly fine without Secure Boot or even UEFI.

    Vendors want to do it so their products don't look deficient compared to others, and so they can have a meaningless little sticker on the product saying "Certified for Windows 8". That's all.

    There's nothing wrong with Secure Boot if you can add your own keys or disable it. The key adding process could be a little more user-friendly, okay. The problems arise when OEMs only implement the ability to boot Windows, without the ability to add new keys or disable the system. Intel should have known the OEMs can't necessarily be trusted.
    I try to treat the cause, not the symptom. I avoid the terminal in instructions, unless it's easier or necessary. My instructions will work within the Ubuntu system, instead of breaking or subverting it. Those are the three guarantees to the helpee.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Beans
    1,692
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: Microsft is Target of Hispalinux over EUFI

    Quote Originally Posted by VTPoet View Post
    That's a bleak and depressing thought, but you may well be right. That's certainly been the trend. It's one of the reasons I've learned to despise Jobs and Apple. On other hand, the PC originally started out as a closed and locked down system. It was reverse engineering that busted open the PC. That sort of ingenuity may come about again if, in the future, we are left with nothing more than two or three monopolies.
    I don't feel inclined to "despise" Apple or Microsoft or anyone else in the business. I may not like this or that product, or this or that approach to doing business, but I find it difficult to ratchet it up to that level.

    It is inevitable that any vendor selling a complete PC is going to try to maximize the revenue it generates. (The goal is profit; the product is only a means to that end.) The obvious way to do that is to build a system that is compatible with only itself. So, if a user wants to add more memory, or more storage, or better video, they either must upgrade the entire package or buy a branded component from the vendor.

    That was pretty much the situation in the very early days of the personal computer, before IBM released their PC and the dominance of MSDOS. A horde of similar-but-not-compatible PC-like machines targeting businesses existed that might or might run each other's software: Victor, Heath, Zenith, Amstrad, Texas, Osborne, KayPro, etc.etc. In the home market, Commodores weren't compatible with Apple which weren't compatible with Atari's which weren't compatible with Amiga's, and on and on and on.

    Businesses ran the risk of finding themselves with a huge investment in hardware and software from a vendor that vanished, for one reason or another. Stuck, in other words, with a dead-end orphaned infrastructure.

    Home users who bought hardware from a given vendor found themselves locked into the offerings of only that vendor. It's not fun, say, to have $4000 stuck in Atari or Amiga systems and wake up one morning to find the companies have gone away.

    The de facto standardization brought about by the dominance of Microsoft and the PC hardware platform was *welcomed* by the vast majority of the market. Did it, and does it, restrict the choices available to users? Of course. But, for most users, those are choices they'd rather not have to make. And, usually, don't need to.

    That's why Ubuntu, for example, is right to compete on terms of usability and functionality, rather than openness and freedom.
    Last edited by buzzingrobot; March 28th, 2013 at 03:15 PM.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vermont
    Beans
    853
    Distro
    Ubuntu

    Re: Microsft is Target of Hispalinux over EUFI

    Quote Originally Posted by buzzingrobot View Post
    I don't feel inclined to "despise" Apple or Microsoft or anyone else in the business...
    I'm not troubled by my use of the word 'despise'; but then I do have a poetic license.
    Linux: You reap what you tweak.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •