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?
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 is mainstream everywhere except the desktop, and I heard the desktop is dead anyway.
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.
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!
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)
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.
And it's always been on the thin edge of the razor. Microsoft has readily yanked their chains by changing the file formats and protocols, keeping them perpetually behind in terms of compatibility.
As for Novell, compatibility providing a few years of bounty is meaningless when the source of that bounty turns around and uses their monopoly to effectively drive you from the market. All you've done is made them more powerful.
Also, my dick is bigger than yours.
That is probably the most common logical phallusy.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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
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...
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.
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.
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...
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...
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.