Slashdot Mirror
FSF Criticises Ubuntu For Dropping Grub 2 For Secure Boot
sfcrazy writes "The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has published a whitepaper suggesting how free operating systems can deal with UEFI secure boot. In the whitepaper, the foundation has criticized the approach Canonical/Ubuntu has taken to deal with the problem. The paper reads: 'It is not too late to change. We urge Ubuntu and Canonical to reverse this decision, and we offer our help in working through any licensing concerns. We also hope that Ubuntu, like Fedora, will actively support users generating and using their own signing keys to run and share any versions of the software, and not require users to install a key from Canonical to get the full benefit of their operating system.'"
I'd say the ultimate solution is for every linux fan to stop recommending computers with locked BIOSs, push hardware with coreboot, and to ignore distros which aren't playing ball. Cracking it is the pragmatic solution.
Go ask Novell how well chasing that Microsoft interoperability trains works.
Sadly I think this may well be true in the future if hacking your own PC is treated by Microsoft the same way that modchipping your PS is treated by Sony
I realise it must have been a great trauma to you to have RMS jump through your window wielding a katana and forcing you to install gNewsense GNU/Linux, but seeking counselling is a better solution than going on about it on Slashdot.
Wait, that did not happen? Oh, you were confusing 'criticizing' with something else; and implying that the FSF have no right to express their criticisms. Hmmm. Seems like a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think so yourself?
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Microsoft's key is the only one that you can be sure all computers will have, and so the one all vendors will have to sign with. Making it pointless for them to even have their own keys. By design, I am quite sure: The limit is one-key-only because it was always intended that only one vendor would survive. Microsoft.
So far there's no indication that you need to hack anything. Microsoft requires that PC's sold as certified for for Windows 8 allow you to enter custom mode and load your own certs. The reason Linux Distros are going the routes they are, using a Microsoft Signed boot loader, is that they want something that will be bootable on any machine out there with out having to enter the bios. While your typical users here on slashdot probably doesn't have any problems entering their bios and adjusting Bios settings for many other users is something they've never done and it's going to be extremely specific to that mfgs implementation on that particular hardware so no general set of instructions is possible.
This is the start of a sea change in who controls our computers. Yes, for now you can turn it off (oh, sorry, unless you're using an ARM system), but this is just the first step. They can't go the entire way all at once. They've tried before, and learned they have to go one step at a time. Each step doesn't seem so bad, until finally, all the cards fall into place.
Already most of our mobile devices no longer belong to us, unless you manage to defeat the device's security that is meant as security against YOU, the owner of the device. Bought anything with iOS, or about 95% of the Android devices? Or WP7? Sorry, someone else owns it even after you purchased it. That's the world that many powers like Microsoft and many governments desire for the whitebox PC. A locked down device that obeys other masters, only booting "trusted" OSs that let those masters have the final say over what your computer does. Because a world where a billion individuals had control over their own computers could not be allowed to persist. It threatens too many corporations and governments.
Of course, people will buy these increasingly locked down PCs just like they are falling all over themselves to buy tablets, so this world WILL come to pass. All we can do is figure out how to deal with it.
for someone to hack the secure boot BIOS
So it's come to the point of having to attack our own computers just to run the software we want? The fact that we have to resort to these measure is a sign of just how bad things have gotten.
provide an easy way for users to reflash theirs from Windows or whatever OS is preinstalled
So to run free software, I have to first agree to yet another license for proprietary software? That is a step backwards if I have ever seen one.
No doubt this will prevent windows being reinstalled but unless you want a dual boot machine I doubt this matters much
There are lots of people who want or need dual boot. I would guess that a substantial fraction, maybe even a majority, of GNU/Linux users have dual boot. People should be free to use their computers the way they want, which includes the freedom to dual boot.
Palm trees and 8
Canonical is making the right choice for their users.
Funny how when I was growing up, free/libre software meant that the users did not have to rely on companies like Canonical to make their choices for them.
Palm trees and 8
Sadly I think this may well be true in the future if hacking your own PC is treated by Microsoft the same way that modchipping your PS is treated by Sony
I haven't really been paying attention to what Sony has been doing (don't own a PS3), but I wonder if Sony really cares about modchipping itself, or if they just want to keep modded consoles off of PSN?
The latter seems reasonable to me... If you want to mod the console, fine. Just don't expect to be allowed to play in the sandbox with all of the unmodded consoles. You know if they let modded consoles on that games would be flooded by griefers and other annoying breeds of adolescent (chronological or mental).
Not picking a fight, just wondering if I'm missing something...
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
Actually no.
The linux kernel is the choice of most of the embedded community (which Google Android is part of) and has garnered its mainstream acceptance in this market since the kernel was first introduced. Google picked the Linux kernel to host the Android OS not only because it was free, but because the Linux kernel was already prevalent in the embedded market and was compatible with the ARM processor. Android OS may have increased the number of units sold with the Linux kernel installed, but it DID NOT make Linux mainstream in the embedded market.
Android didn't even make Linux mainstream to the general public. The consumer has no direct contact with the kernel, nor is Linux mentioned in any marketing done by Google to the general public. In this case, the linux kernel is just a part of a much bigger OS being installed on a mobile phone. I think when most people think of Linux they think of the Linux kernel with the Posix compliant runtime environment. Android does not fit this definition.
Nitpicks aside... Linux only has mainstream acceptance in the embedded and server market. People purposely choose a Linux OS to run on a server. People do NOT choose a Linux OS to run their phone (well not a lot of them), they instead choose Android OS which Google spent large amounts of money to market it. My point being that in order to be considered "mainstream" the community at large would consider picking your product directly versus as an internal part of a much more popular product.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Platform fragmentation that keeps developers and publishers away, tons of UI/UX rough edges, very powerful customization that is never backed by some serious graphical utility just configuration files so that newcomers can get scarred of screwing up (or screwing up again and again), cool technologies and flashy features that changes the environment every Thursday or so, being pushed before stabilizing core software, plethora the apps each written in a dozen programming languages, widget set, frameworks, dozens of libraries to parse command-line parameters or whatnot, lack of proper contingencies when screwing up (especially when dealing with xorg)
I still love the platform even if it's all over the place. Linux isn't popular because one of it's strengths, diversity, is being prioritized more than anything. Many people can't see that scratching an itch in three different places has no chance of 100% effectiveness.
uhm...