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.'"
... for someone to hack the secure boot BIOS and provide an easy way for users to reflash theirs from Windows or whatever OS is preinstalled on the machine when bought new. No doubt this will prevent windows being reinstalled but unless you want a dual boot machine I doubt this matters much.
On a related note, how will this affect linux being booted from within windows (if anyone still uses that approach)?
I would like to refer every single person who henceforth asks the question "Why hasn't Linux ever gone mainstream?" to the parent post.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
I believe Torvalds said that he likes Ubuntu (although he prefers Fedora for work purposes), as did ESR.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Go ask Novell how well chasing that Microsoft interoperability trains works.
not as much, but still (for planning to use the MS key). It's a very bad position we (Free Software) are in with Restricted/Secure boot. I think it's time the Linux friendly vendors really get behind CoreBoot [http://www.coreboot.org/Welcome_to_coreboot] and let us be truly independent.
As it is setup right now:
Binaries can only be signed with one key. If you use Microsoft's key, you can't use your own.
Not all vendors may support letting users add their own keys. (and even if they do it certainly complicates a fresh install).
ARM will be completely locked down if vendors want MS to run on it.
If you use the Microsoft key, they can revoke your access (they likely need cause, but still)
Linux users in general are just Unix posers. If you aren't running HPUX on a home Itanium server, then you're just using watered down bullshit.
Also, my dick is bigger than yours.
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'?
Linux will never go mainstream because there are trolls on the internet? Gosh.
Linux is mainstream everywhere except the desktop, and I heard the desktop is dead anyway.
Ubuntu/Canonical has been the worst type of Karma whores since the beginning. They built a following by pimping the philosophy of freedom, only to abandon these ideals once the foundation was set. They have enouraged people to accept non-free video and wireless drivers, while companies like RedHat have tried to work with Vendors and educate folks about why this is a bad thing. Now with their app store with non-free projects; they've even undone this feat with kneeling towards Redmond (secureboot). I know not all Linux users care about freedom, but it is sad how even prominent linux users feel like they've accomplished something by getting their local school or whatever to use Ubuntu. People may complain about the free software philosophy all they want, but soon if Ubuntu continues, its going to be a much lesser degree of the early iterations of Windows with lots of propreitary-ness with bits and pieces of freedom (Windows started out using some BSD code). tl:dr Shuttleworth and Canonical are hypocrites and karmawhores.
Linux has gone mainstream... Just not on the desktop. Where is remains a distant 3rd behind Windows and OS/X.
With Android, Linux is quite popular with mobile. Linux is also strong on the server side too.
Linux never made it to the desktop, because there were too many drivers to support. When you luck out and get a System that is well supported by Linux... Linux rocked on that system. However if you try to put Linux on a poorly supported system, it usually sucked, and felt like a cheap OS.
If Microsoft make "Windows 9" a Linux Distribution with a Windows themed UI. It would probably be just like Vista, many people complaining about hardware compatibility, systems crashing all the time (due to improper drivers)
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
And my dick is bigger then your dick.
Good for you. At least you have one thing going for you, since you appear to be semi-literate.
Novell made a killing and and was an industry powerhouse for decades. Much of their wealth came from making the Microsoft environment easier to use.
Also many of Microsoft's biggest competitors started of by being compatible with Microsoft. Google providing Exchange protocol services, Office file format compatibility, same with Apple, OpenOffice, etc. And that hasn't worked out too bad for them.
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
OS/X? Finally, the successor to OS/2 the market has been waiting for!
They can call it WARP 10!
Syslinux FTW!
Hell, even this is an oversized bloated bootloader if all you need to do is always boot ONE system and leave it running until the cleaning crew takes your power outlet. GRUB1 was horrible thought at least it was reasonably well documented, eventually. GRUB2 was worse, and depricated GRUB1 even before they had the equivalent docs out. And LILO is not even in the running. There are a couple micro boot loaders around that work on PCs, and those would be good.
Sure, there are some people around that want dual boot or more (I've built a machine with 36 OSes on it ... yup, you can do more partitions in GPT ... so I know what that's like). Those people might need GRUB2. But I still did the 36 OS box with Syslinux (all OSes wear Linux ... no Redmond garbage here).
A shim should be a basic and simple as possible. GRUB just isn't even close.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I refute your argument by identifying it as the "one true Scotsman" fallacy.
FC Closer
they may take away the capability to disable it entirely
They already are taking it away on ARM based systems. "On an ARM system, it is forbidden to enable Custom Mode. ... Disabling Secure MUST NOT be possible on ARM systems" (page 122 of Windows Hardware Certification Requirements)
If your company is issuing you a computer, and they don't realize that some engineers want to run Linux, they may not let you install new keys or disable the secure boot
Sounds like a big selling point: "Make sure your employees only run approved software!" Corporate bosses are not going to complain about losing control, and if the engineers are unable to make a business case for approving another OS (see how things switch up there), they had better just deal with what was approved.
I think Red Hat's strategy is to be the Linux distribution that will work without having to mess with any secure boot issues,
Which is a fine strategy for making money on a GNU/Linux distro, but some of us would prefer not to have to get Microsoft's permission to run the software we want to run. If you look at what Fedora will be doing, it makes it pretty hard to run a custom kernel, it does not help in running other distros, and it basically turns Fedora into a fancy TiVO. That's fine for Red Hat's desktop strategy, but the rest of us are going to need a better approach.
Palm trees and 8
You seem to be errantly conflating "true geek" with "anal self-important elitist prick".
Many geeks use Ubuntu as there are various places where it is the right tool (or at least one of the appropriate options) for the job.
Slaps AC with a cold wet trout of sarcasm.
Also, my dick is bigger than yours.
That is probably the most common logical phallusy.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Agreed. While I think this issue certainly warrants discussion, the whole article comes off as childish with quips like this: "we view Windows itself as malware and want to keep it away from our machines." They seem like they are making a big deal out of this thing just to sound holier than thou. Their ideal situation, where users can install their own certificates or choose to disable secure boot, is exactly what is mandated by Microsoft (for x86 at least). They even mention this in the article. The only problem they seem to have is with some nebulous "barrier to installation" caused by having to manually do one of those two things before you can install another operating system. It is 100% completely impossible to have secure boot without SOME additional effort on the users part when installing another bootloader or OS because that is entirely the point (to prevent malware silently subverting the boot process). The article is chocked full of complaints with no tangible solutions.
Although it was obvious the FSF would take this position, as it should, isn't it strategically wise to have multiple solutions for users to load a (mostly) free software OS on hardware with UEFI? For similar reasons, I think it's good to have Android devices running ClockworkMod so that they may boot CyanogenMod/Replicant. I understand that we (free software advocates) should always be encouraging consumers to make smart choices and purchase devices that will run free software (and a complete free software stack, when that's possible).
However, free software would become an "oasis in a desert", rather than a large and thriving ecosystem, if binary blobs, non-free drivers, non-free BIOS's, firmware hacks, etc. weren't around. It would become increasingly difficult to bring in more users. Those who have developed free software implementations to replace proprietary ones originate from all over the free software spectrum, so the pool of developers would also shrink.
I think you always want both: the hardcores who will run free software and free software only, and those who will make compromises on devices until (if/when) stable free software is developed for those devices. The FSFE's advice on installing CyanogenMod seems like a sensible approach that takes this into consideration. Likewise, why not help someone install as much free software as possible on a device with a non-free BIOS/bootloader?
It seems to me that UEFI will die a quick death if we A) fight very vocally against it, B) convince powerful corporations and governments that it's bad for them, C) ignore it where/when we can, and D) help others to circumvent it when necessary. It doesn't seem much different than the DRM problem in that way.
I would be very happy with Canonical's UEFI strategy if the following from this past /. comment can be done:
- Canonical will get efilinux signed with microsoft keys. So GRUB2 has to be made bootable from efillinux (efilinux is rather primitive, it just loads a kernel from a set collection of blocks from the device and run it. It shouldn't be too much difficult to have efilinux load and execute a GRUB2's "stage 1.5" or "stage 2"). Thus efilinux is the part that needs to be signed with microsoft's key (and efilinux's license makes it possible. Although that also means that you won't be able to hack it).
...
- GRUB2 can load coreboot (an opensource firmware) payloads, so it could also load SeaBIOS (a legacy BIOS implementation as a coreboot payload). - GRUB2 can also load windows XP's boot loader. So if any of the above is possible (either chainloading efilinux to grub2, or signing grub2 in a gplv3 compatible way). That means that grub2 could be used to boot windows XP on secure-boot hardware. (with seabios providing the legacy bios compatibility, and windows XP's ntldfr being loaded from grub2).
That unfortunately-complex method of chaining together multiple bootloaders seems to allow for any OS, even legacy ones, to boot (or at least attempt to boot) on UEFI hardware. Such a door might be closed if Canonical decides it won't play ball with Microsoft, and that seems like a door worth having open. However, I welcome any rebuttals...I don't know nearly enough about the issue.
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
Intel knows where they can make money from GNU/Linux: servers. That is not the target of this restricted boot system, and even if these restrictions come to servers, nobody will complain -- professional IT workers can put a $99 signing key purchase on their budget and continue to deploy whatever they want. Desktop GNU/Linux is not going to make Intel all that much money, and they know it -- Windows and Mac OS X are where all the desktop money is.
Intel and everyone else knows that restricted boot environments for personal computers (desktops and laptops) will be hugely profitable. Entertainment companies love it -- they can deploy a new kind of DRM that won't be defeated for years (see: PS3). Software companies love it, because they can stop people from applying cracks to evade DRM. ISPs love it because they can better lock-down their networks if they can control the computers that can be connected to those networks. The potential for money-making deals is HUGE, and Intel knows that when their chips are the center of these profitable systems, they make lots of money.
At the end of the day, Intel could not care less about hackers or computing freedom; they exist to make money, and there is no money to be made in allowing desktop and laptop users to have freedom.
Palm trees and 8
is that game sales subsidize console sales.
The FSF: we don't like how Ubuntu uses UEFI instead of Grub 2. We think this is bad for these reasons . . .
You: "Sure does like to dictate what people use, kinda funny that way"
I believe you did confuse "criticize" with "dictate" or accused the FSF of doing something it did not do. Unless "criticize" and "dictate" changed meaning in the English language recently.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
No, they're concerned that Ubuntu is giving up a GPL bootloader because they're choosing to adopt Microsoft's secure-boot solution, which effectively puts all such systems under Microsoft's control and makes it infinitely harder for "unapproved" software to run on the systems (which, if Microsoft's attitude is any indication, would include virtually all Free Software.)
So my computer belongs to Microsoft? Dell? Asus?
Perhaps you missed the bit where ALL systems with the Windows 8 logo were going to be forced into this locked state by default. It's not just a corporate security feature, it's being rammed down ALL of our throats.
Drivers are only a part of the problem. The biggest is the fragmentation, of well, everything. The UI is different for every distro, every version, and every update. The configuration files are different for every distro, version and update. Besides a few very well known apps, compatibility of binaries and apps are a real crap-shoot.
Linux will become mainstream the second that the number of CSE graduates outnumbers any other major in society.
Think about it another way -- there are probably more copies of "Windows 7 for dummies" sold then there are installs of Linux being used as a desktop. With configurability, comes the loss of the mainstream. And plus, most UI/UX/usability in most Linux based apps don't follow the KISS method...
The problem, again, is not UEFI but secure boot. The two are not inextricably linked.
You'll have an uphill battle. Apple is transparently convincing people that DRM is good.
Can't happen. If any point has a flaw then the key gets revoked. From the UEFI platform down to the kernel needs to be "trusted" to betray the user, and the kernel must be secured against local exploits that allow bypassing of the chain.
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...
You DO know that the first amendment doesn't apply to private organizations, right?
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
Is there any way to get editors who know enough English to at least filter out sentences like:
Oh, please, it's just a one-letter typo, no need to get twisted.
There, fixed it.
I've been uswing Linux for ten years, exclusively for maybe seven. I 'm not a programmer, but I'm comfortable at the command line, and I even released my own live CD, a modified version of Slax. So I'm competant, but I also have limitations. I like to keep a debian-based distro on one machine, and slackware based distro on the other, and among debian-based distros, ubuntu is the one that works, within my limitations, with my hardware. Again and again. I used to hate Ubuntu, because I had cut my teeth on Debian, and I didn't know enough to negotiate the ways in which Ubuntu was different, but as a long-time Debian fanboy, I now love Ubuntu for having the vision to bet on debian as the template for mainstream Linux success, at a time when everybody was raving about Fedora. This is what I discovered by luck, as a newbie who installed Debian Sarge, and what I'd been telling everybody. Nobody believed me because Debian still had the reputation of being for geeks. I was lucky enough to come along at the birth of the new installer for Debain. Installing Woody, the previous version, was a long ordeal, with about 50 impenetrable questions I had to bluff through. Sarge was easy to install, and it came with an automatic connection to a ridiculous amount of software, and finding and installing software (and its dependancies) was the problem for a newbie. I saw the opportunity, and so did Shuttleworth. Ubuntu proved me wrong, and then it proved me right. It's still Debian at the core, the powerful system that used to be strictly for geeks.
'nuff said.
If Canonical doesn't care about users, why is Ubuntu is the only Linux distribution to win a measurable share of the mass-market desktop?
Come on, are you serious? I can take a lot of criticism about the FSF: they're too radical, their software takes forever to be released, their beards are out of fashion... but one thing I don't think you can seriously debate: they are on our side. They are here to help us, they are the good guys.
You don't have to rely on Canonical unless you want to use their product, which is essentially what choosing software is, you use someone's software (maybe your own) over someone else's because of the choices they made.
Sure, that's the way things work right now. When UEFI restrictions come into play, things start to work differently. I can choose not to use Ubuntu and Fedora, and then what? I get stuck jumping through hoops just to install anything else -- and while I have the technical expertise and patience needed to do so, it is still annoying, and for some people it is either too annoying or too difficult to do.
That is the choice this situation forces you into: either you accept the code written by Fedora or Ubuntu, or you have to work hard to get something else up and running / pay for the right to do so. You are not able to simply reject those distros whose choices you disagree with; you must decide if those accepting those choices would be as bad as trying to get something else to work. A few months ago, I stopped using Fedora because of a disagreement I had with their choices (completely unrelated to the boot process); now I have to reevaluate that, because getting the distros I like to run on the next laptop I buy might require more of a time commitment than I can make.
I honestly don't understand how you have a problem with the concept of distros deciding to do certain things certain ways? Did you write your own package manager and kernel? In which case why are you using Ubuntu anyway? Why are you even using Linux, they've made all sorts of choices for you.
I am free to accept or reject the choices that other people made. I can always fork a project if I do not like the direction it is taking. Except, of course, if I need a digital signature from the project in order to run my fork on my own computer / if I have to get some company's permission (i.e. by paying a fee).
It is not about other people making decisions; it is about my freedom to accept those decisions. Maybe I like everything in Ubuntu, except for the bootloader -- maybe I really want to run grub2. Now I am stuck jumping through all sorts of hoops to get that to work -- either buying a key and agreeing to contracts, or putting the system in custom mode and instructing anyone who wants to use my code to do the same. Forking a distro in this model sounds like a giant pain, with extra hurdles and hoops that just push people to use the handful of distros that can pay to play.
Palm trees and 8
^ Please see the above wall of text for an example of the type of user who finds Linux usable on the desktop.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Linux has gone mainstream on the Mobile devices... GNU/Linux hasn't.
Linux is the kernel.
GNU/Linux, Android are the Operating Systems that use the kernel.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
but anti trust comes into view with signed code?
Who controls the singing?
Who controls the app store?
What about banning apps based on content (not code)?
What about free OS (you can't go MS only)
What about older software and older hardware?
Except it isn' 'Microsoft's secure-boot solution', it is the Trusted Computing Groups secure-boot solution. Microsoft is a 'promote'r of TCG, but so is AMD, Intel, Cisco, IBM, HP, Fujitsu, Juniper, Infineon, Wave, and Lenovo. Move down into the 'Contributor' category and you add dozens more companies, including Red Hat, Accenture, AMI, Dell, Freescale, Toyota, Hitachi, General Dynamics, Sony, Seagate, Western Digital, etc.
Surely you don't think that all those companies are interested in Trusted Computing just because Microsoft is insisting on it, do you? They are interested because either they or their customers have real world problems with sensitive data leakage, regulatory compliance, etc.
Secure boot is just one little link in the chain of Trusted Computing. It is the first test that FOSS is facing with regard to the upcoming changes in computing. There will be many more to follow. If FOSS wants to remain relevant in the coming age where owners demand tighter control over their data they are going to have to figure out how to adapt.
Now, there is nothing that is incompatible with the ideas of 'open source' and the ideas of 'trusted computing'. Trusted computing does not require closed source or secrecy (except of course for signing keys). There is absolutely no technical reason that Red Hat, or SuSe, or Ubuntu, can't provide a 100% FOSS solution that is trusted. The only thing that could hold them back is putting ideology first.
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...
You and your silly Itanium. IRIX on MIPS is the way! (Much nicer then Solaris on SPARC too...)
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
The correct name is, "WARP WALRUS"
/* No Comment */
My initial response was : "who cares, as long as it's fun" .
And Linux is fun .
The biggest is the fragmentation, of well, everything. The UI is different for every distro, every version, and every update
Only someone who hasn't done years of work on Microsoft systems could seriously claim this as a drawback for Linux. How many different GUI toolkits in its various OS versions is Microsoft up to now? 4? 5? It probably depends on how you count...
Whoa easy killer, I didnt know they personally came in and saved you and your family from terrorist mere moments before being shot in the head. I just think its funny that a group that advocates software freedom always gets their panties in a big ole wad when someone does something they didnt like. Fuck them its none of their concern what Ubunutu uses as a bootloader, thats (gasp) freedom.
Freedom for whom?
That's really the question you have to ask, because anytime that you work to guarantee freedom for one group, you are restricting the freedom of another. For example, guaranteeing freedom of speech in the first amendment restricts the legislative freedom of the US government and prevents them from passing certain hate speech laws.
The FSF doesn't hide the fact they are for freedom for the users. In order to guarantee this freedom, they aim to restrict the freedom of developers, distributors, and, in some cases, hardware manufacturers. I agree with them. I think the freedom of the people is more important than the freedom of governments and the freedom of the users is more important than the freedoms of the developers. If the developer doesn't want other people to use his product in ways that were not intended by him, he is 100% free to do that: By not selling or otherwise distributing said product.
Microsoft has been a hard-driver behind ALL of this.
And you'll find that promoters have way, way more say than most Contributors, once you get inside these groups.
Generally they're all assholes when it comes to restricting users. Microsoft just happens to be an 800lb gorilla.
Indeed, a chain secured by a lock you won't have the key to.
FOSS is explicitly being excluded in these situations. All of these "solutions" require some 3rd party to be trusted and for the entire platform to be geared to work AGAINST the user, who is treated like the enemy rather than the party to be protected.
Of course not, but that would imply that 'trusted computing' put the user in a 'trusted position.' The vast majority of current applications do not. The user is completely untrusted and given a little sandbox to piddle around in.
Or the fact that a FOSS solution that is trusted is pretty much 100% antithetical to the concept behind FOSS, especially when you've effectively TiVOized everything by locking it up and not giving the user the key.
While they have some similar goals, TPM and UEFI are different things. Almost all PC hardware in existance now is already capable of remote attestation since TPM modules have been around for years now. You can even set up a linux OS so that it can only mount an encrypted volume if it was booted via the trusted path - if you boot from a CD and chroot to the root volume it won't be able to mount the encrypted volume. Ditto if you change the bootloader or kernel. Google for trusted grub sometime.