Slashdot Mirror
Linus Torvalds Explodes at Red Hat Developer
sfcrazy writes "Quite a lot of people raised their eyebrows the way ex-Red Hat developer Matthew Garrett made Microsoft the 'universal' control of any desktops PCs running with UEFI secure boot. Though the intentions of Garrett were clear — to enable GNU/Linux to be able to run Linux on Windows 8 certified PCs with secure boot; it was clearly putting Microsoft in a very powerful position. Linus, while a supporter of secure boot, exploded at Garrett and Howells when they proposed its inclusion in the kernel. Linus responded: 'Guys, this is not a d*#@-sucking contest. If you want to parse PE binaries, go right ahead. If Red Hat wants to deep-throat Microsoft, that's *your* issue. That has nothing what-so-ever to do with the kernel I maintain. It's trivial for you guys to have a signing machine that parses the PE binary, verifies the signatures, and signs the resulting keys with your own key. You already wrote the code, for chissake, it's in that f*cking pull request.'"
Update: 02/25 17:24 GMT by U L : The headline/article are misleading, since mjg seems to agree that the patch is a bit complicated : "(I mean, *I'm* fine with the idea that they're *@#$ing idiots and deserve to be miserable, but apparently there's people who think this is a vital part of a business model)". The issue at hand is a set of patches to load and store keys inside of a UEFI PE binary which is then passed to the kernel, which then extracts the keys from the binary. It's absurd, it's messy, and it's only needed because Microsoft will only sign PE binaries so not supporting it makes restricted boot even more difficult to support.
He claims to love Linux, but what he really loves is himself. And every time it looks like Linux might achieve even a modicum of success, his overinflated ego is always there to ruin it.
Someone needs to tell him that it's hard enough to get people to adopt your OS with 3 million competing distros, much less with the leadership of an egotistical ass who takes every opportunity to scream like bipolar child at anyone who tries to actually help. The only thing Garrett was doing in this case was recognizing a problem going forward, and fixing it. And Torvalds tears his head off for it. He thinks everything has to be a big heroic stand--with him as hero, of course.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
I'd love to see the two having an argument.
Here in real life, you don't last long on the job if you treat your colleagues like that.
The only one in a dick sucking contest is Linus, he's sucked so much dicks he's lapped everyone else twice.
me to better understand the issue here?
Matthew isn't at Red Hat anymore.
Remember when he criticized GNOME? That was about as professional as a judge recommending a lawyer. What about when he called the OpenBSD team a bunch of masturbating monkeys? Linus is an a-hole. This isn't news.
Thanks for making the OSS movement look bad, Linus.
I like this Spirit. The spirit of excellence
I'd be interested to know how you can separate words like "free" and "open" (as in "free" and "open source" software) from ideology.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Of course this is just an observation based on 2 emails, but is he normally that insanely high strung? or is there something eating at him?
I like Linus and his work. We need people like him. We need linux, but is this how Linus always behaved?
So I wasn't clear... Linus is saying he is against merging the code into the kernel, right?
glad Linus knows better than to let microsoft skullfuck him,
:)
"attaboy" Linus! Kudos
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
really? did he swallow a stick of dynamite or something? this is exciting news? did anyone measure the equivalent kilotons of TNT equivalent that "one Linus" is?
When Linus makes a comment on something, why does he always sound like an eight year old throwing a tantrum? Looks like it would get embarrassing after a while. Yeesh!
He claims to love Linux, but what he really loves is himself...
This is an absurd troll. Linux IS Linux and he's free to do whatever he wishes in that regard. But, anyone with any understanding of the issue at all would clearly see that Linus is right. Microsoft has successfully leveraged it's monopoly status in the PC industry by implementing secure boot where they and they alone hold the keys to even BOOT a PC.
Implementing wedges or incorporating Microsoft's binaries into your code to boot your distribution is your option. But, expecting Linus to accept it into the kernel, when he has repeatedly made it clear that he will not incorporate non-free binaries, let alone this Microsoft root kit is asinine and ludicrous.
burned out maybe?
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
The more I learn about the developers within the tight circle of the Linux kernel the more elite and prickish they sound. That doesn't mean they aren't talented and can do a good job it's just a different environment than one I'd ever want to work in. It's extremely hostile with many competitors (windows, apple) trying to get you to conform so they control you.
Linus is that grizzly old man in the log cabin who owns 20,000 acres of timber that the logging companies desperately want. Except he has a gun, and he never wears any pants.
deep throating huh? sounds like Linus is a fan of facial abuse :/
"Secure boot" is really spelled "d-i-c-k s-u-c-k-i-n-g c-o-n-t-e-s-t"?
... Fox News is going to want him.
I admire his command of English, given that it's his second language.
Dunno... Since when is deep throat. A bad thing?
It's I think Torvalds needs to lighten lighten up.
It's ALL good, Linux everywhere compatible with everyone and thing. Free.
Face-to-face meetings carry a lot of emotional communication - body language, facial expressions...
Email - not so much.
So a simple "No that is not the way we are doing things" means a lot less in an email, than it does in person with a grimace for an expression (or body language by simulated gagging/throwing up).
So Linus has to use more direct language.
And he did say why it was the wrong thing to do.
Garret may have recognized a problem, but he doesn't recognize a solution that is already provided - which looks like a "NIH" issue (not-invented-here). This has recently been a rather bad problem for RH employees - for other examples, just look at how gnome3 is dying. Very likely, if there had been someone like Linus in charge of that project, someone willing to clearly identify stupidity when it shows, maybe things would have gone much better.
Well said Linus.. I think.. lol
The high-level view is this: Microsoft wants to ensure that nobody can run unapproved software on their home computers. As a first step toward this nightmare, they bullied computer makers into shipping a bootloader signature system that could potentially prevent people from running GNU/Linux. Red Hat, a multibillion dollar GNU/Linux distributor, decided to play along and got a special signing key from Microsoft. Linus apparently does not want to play along (and I commend him for it).
Palm trees and 8
And I speak for all of us when I say, I'm jealous of Linus's talent, success, and natural authority, but most of all, I hate his ability to cut through bullshit and put supercilious poseurs like me in their place.
As Cardinal Richeleiu is reputed to have said:
Take it out of context and give it an inflamatory introduction and it looks like an explosion.
Read the exchange in the original context and it reads like just another frank exchange on the LKML.
Linus's prima donna and disrespectful attitude is getting really old.
Posting anonymous just to be sure..
Since i saw a Google Tech Talk with Linus on stage, i certainly like him less.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 (mostly about Git but nonetheless showcasing his persona)
Linux is great and all, but i am certainly not a fan of Linus anymore. Respect though for his incredible achievements.
He's a dick the same way Jobs was (also sharing similar strengths regarding vision), and i now realize he basically is a real life Sheldon Cooper, ego humor and everything.
Aside from being a bit of a dick sometimes, I think I am totally in agreement with Linus on not wanting something like this in kernel space, let alone something from MS.
Perhaps a little more civility though, Linus ;)
And here's our problem - no operating system wants to give any other operating system a heads up on anything, ever. The software landscape tends to "fracture by default" and it's a pure ego problem. Denying functionality because it might help your competitor creates confusion and frustration for users. It's like the video player you need to play most of the videos, the IM you need to chat with the most people, or the other one you need to chat with the rest of the people. It's the reason we all have 10,000 passwords to remember now and all our HDDs are full of software we barely need or barely works.
Linus, you speak a lot of truth a lot of the time but you just made everyones job harder and made yourself look childish while doing it.
If you do not have a thick skin in this business you will get eaten up from the inside. I learned that the hard way. This is a business of egos, because this is first a business of Art and Art is ego. Yes, we wrap logic and algorithms around it, but the foundation is a creative process and that is tied to ego.
The question I have is what happens to Linux after Linus? If he is the Monarch, is there an heir or will Linux slowly begin to splinter without that strong Ego to guide its vision. Seems like the King does not want something added to "his" kernel, but had he disappeared just before his tirade, what would have happened?
maybe this goes into the deeper question of who (or what) defines the core of a Kernel. For Windows, iOS it seems to be decisions by committee and business need. For Linux? We say it is open source, but with His Holiness issuing colorful decrees, how open is it besides the obvious insurrection approach.
From what little I've garnered about the man, that was a fairly tame tirade, it does no impact on the progress of Linux and once I finally understood the issue I tended to agree with Linus's view, though with less passion.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
Given Linus' stand on "I'm being pragmatic and you're ruining EVERYTHING" bullshit against RMS, Tridge, Bruce, GPL3, etc, he really doesn't have a leg to stand on here with the Red Hat developer "pragmatically" going with the version that makes it work.
It really is no different than the Tivoisation that Linus raved on about being absolutely fine with him, and therefore the FSF's GPLv3 was an anathema against freedom.
I don't get it ... MSFT bought this place ? so much astroturfing, spin doctors, etc. Linus is right, i do not want any MSFT trojans inside linux and i also will not buy a piece of hardware that requires permission from some corporation for its use.
Linus is the man !
I can't find the article, but it seems to me that Linus was just in slashdot news not too long ago for ripping some other developer a new one. And looking back I find he's the subject of an article where he rips some politician a new one on a web page. Is this what Linus Torvalds is all about, screaming at people? I get the whole "you gotta have a thick skin" argument, sure, but is Linus the one making that argument a reality? How about some shit like some fucking P.R., or some fucking H.R. sensitivity, and some bullshit? What's his fucking huge dickheaded problem?
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
Given Linus' stance that Tivoisation is not a problem because as long as Linux gets used on hardware, that's all that counts, in what way does using MS's "largesse" to sign secure boot linux to get Linux used on hardware any different?
I don't remember anyone claiming that if Linus wants to Deep Throat Tivo, that's HIS issue...
We are in a world where Linux at least has some sort of clout. The right answer is to exercise that to push forward a better model and not kowtow to MS security model. Even if you think the goal of securely measured and protected boot is good, MS as the root of trust is bad idea. I'd go further and say the mechanism's inability to measure/protect custom configuration and script content make it nearly a moot point. It's difficult to imagine a system that would be able to cover custom config and script content that would not at the same time render the 'SecureBoot' concept completely and utterly redundant.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Linus looks like a dumb unappreciative fuck towards all the people "contributing" to his toy hobby OS.
Linus Torvalds has another childish temper tantrum. News at 11.
/* No Comment */
There's not a single exclamation mark in that response.
The guy swears, not news.
Perhaps next time submit a post about the subject matter being discussed and not how it's discussed?
Totally with Linus on this one. Guy is blunt, terse and sans bu!!sh!t. I like it.
Don't hold back Linus. Tell us how you really feel!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
My theory is that we all have a Stallman Point, a spot on the spectrum of the slide away from personal computing freedom where we just can't calmly stand around and watch folks push things further the wrong way. It looks to me like Linus just hit his with this "SecureBoot" crapola.
Sadly, everyone has a slightly different Stallman Point, and folks who haven't yet reached theirs look at someone getting upset and think "what an unreasonable person", while those who are long past theirs look at the same person and say "what a buffoon. If he'd only had this fit back at *my* Stallman Point we could have nipped this in the bud, but now its far too late".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I agree with him on this, the way he expressed it is unfortunate but his point stands.
This is meant to be anything but a way to stop malware, this is meant to stop Microsoft software piracy and hurt alternative OSes in the process.
Canonical and Red Hat might be having a dick sucking contest. Maybe they just didn't invite Linus.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Here's a thought. If having Microsoft being in charge of providing the key as to who gets to boot or not is such a good idea, then it would make just as much sense to have Apple be in charge of the key or even Redhat. Would Microsoft be willing to put Redhat in control of key signing into their kernel? Probably not. Then why should the linux kernel be subjected to Microsoft's control?
Torvalds is correct on this. It is unfortunate in the way he articulated it, because instead of reasoned argument, it comes across as a flaming rant.
That man is my hero... I really wish more Engineers and Software guys would stand up to idiocy like that.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
If this is a stopgap measure to allow me to run Linux on secure boot systems, I'm okay with that until a different viable solution comes along.
Linus is okay with the stopgap measure. What he isn't okay with is including this hack of a hack AND a WIndows PE Binary Blob in the mainline kernel.
[Rent This Space]
UEFI and Secure Boot are the end of Linux as we know it. Linux will no longer be a free and open operating system, and will instead become a pet project of Microsoft.
That's just the way it is. It was a fun experiment, but it is over, and Linux lost. Now Linux will be able to be run only by the good graces of Microsoft, with a key signing fee, of course.
This would've been a more interesting article, if it discussed the merits or lack thereof, of the RedHat change in the Linux kernel.
The "drama" the article discusses is of no value to anyone, but the likes of Nerd TMZ (if there was such a thing).
Can we please stop posting articles such as these? And if someone does post one, can we NOT promote them onto the front page?
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
I cannot help wonder if the personalities behind the ideas are not the barriers to adoption.
More for the sake of making the appeal to adopt than making the software that is adopted. Folks like LT and RS are the zealots, but really would you make the change to a culture that idolises people that eat toe cheese and are known for irrational explosions? I sure wouldn't. Despite the pitfalls of the closed-source alternatives, the supporting culture ultimately espouses tolerance and supports adoption.
I suspect the rock climbing scene was similar---the popularisation was driven by a common identity (the exec with climbing shoes) more than the hardcore Reinhold Messeiners.
--M.
you wish you worked with people who suggested you like to suck dick when they disagreed with you?
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
That video is one of the reasons I *like* Linus.
But I actually get things done for a living, so I understand where he's coming from.
This entire secureboot setup gave all the power and leverage to microsoft. Its not even a matter of do you trust the company, its a public company that who knows might not be a round in a few years, do you really want to risk giving the key to update and unlock new computers to a company and hope it all works out for the best?
http://interserver.net/
That's not cussing, it's Perl. Relax guys.
Table-ized A.I.
Microsoft has confused security with authority. Or perhaps they think they are synonyms.
Regardless I think Linus responded quite appropriately.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
Linus is fine, it's a cultural thing. He's serious and not serious at the same time in that talk, to make his point.
Single threaded minds usually can't cope with that and get hung up and offended on the "offensive" parts, usually the ones were Linus is of a different mind, (read, "thinks listeners favorite piece of software is shit") and have absolutely no intention of changing.
Just remember that there is no right to not be offended, even if you feel entitled to such a right.
The difference between him and the others you mention, is that he is quite self effacing. He recognises the way he is, makes no apology for it, but is aware of the effect that it causes others and that it may not be the best way.
Well, unlike Jobs, Linus is creating/maintaining/guarding some of the most important code in the world... which is *free*. He can dick it up all he wants I say.
Herding lots of programmers must drive men to cursing, because Gates & Jobs could rant their curses with the best of them -- and it got them results. Human nature. No news here.
I would much rather have The Linux Foundation get itself on par with Microsoft in getting keys implemented by OEMs.
Giving MS a kill switch is just asking for trouble.
Linus fights for your freedom of vendor lock him, now if you personally want to "go along to get along" you can look the other way like a "good german" while they
MSsoft legally encloses the every aspect of the software industry!
Someone needs to be a dick to make Linux continue to be successful. How big a dick is questionable, but look at HURD and Plan10... It's a design by committee process without as strong a leader, neither has made any actual progress towards being usable, and both have been around for 2 decades.
Yes, so did I, a bit. But then I watched this one and all is good again... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MShbP3OpASA
And Linus would have no product without all of the developers efforts...including Red Hat. Yes, we can play this game of who needs whom, but when the chips are down, history will show that one person didn't do it all.
Uhoh, Torvalds acting like a spoiled child rather than a professional kernel developer again.
I don't care how right he is, or how it came to this. Torvalds needs to be better than this. I've already written him off as a petulant deity: he can't even go 60 days without acting totally inappropriately toward others in the community- The very same community that ensures his daily relevance!
Be a man, then make your point. That's all I ask from the chief architect of the Linux kernel.
Why use Linux when you don't uphold the PRINICPLES of using Linux? FUck off you M$ $HILL BOY.;
I am 110% in agreement with Linus about this, and if I were in his shoes, yelling loudly would be the least of my offenses... There would be a couple of new corpses in the swamp I suspect. UEFI secure boot has its place, but it MUST be at the option of the user to enable/disable it at will, otherwise, we are only RENTING our computers!
I'm not convinced. I haven't heard Guido (Python) acting like that. Still, I've heard worse about Theo (one of the BSDs). So it's one way to herd cats.
I think the thing is that there are different effective management styles...but not an unlimited number of them. And Linus is manifesting ONE of them. Also that if you have an effective management style, the most likely effect of trying to change it is that you'll switch to an ineffective one.
That said, it's also true that we don't hear about the normal flow of things, unless we follow the developers list, so we only hear about the things that are "newsworthy". This is a strongly selective filter that tends to present people in their worst light.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Why do you people put up with shit from this guy when you're still beating a dead jOBS?
This place is more and more serving the same purpose of edifying your worldview as Faux News . . .
Who should be holding the keys to their computer -- the user of the computer of course! But Microsoft doesn't think that way, they think that they should "own" the PC, and the user just uses it. Might as well be a corporate mainframe with millions of dumb terminals in that case, and that's what we are moving towards.
Look at the XBOX -- the new one -- It will have to be connected all the time to the internet, to "verify" every game you try to play. So, how long until your PC has to be connected to internet to "verify" your BIOS before it will even boot into an OS?
And Microsoft holding the keys? What happens if, 6 weeks after we've had this forced on us, MS goes out of business? Or is "bought" in some hostile takeover and then the one server verifying all those keys is removed from service (anyone remember MLB or Danger/Sidekick?)
We will all have to throw away our machines. And we can't even back them up to recover the data (forget about moving the HD to a new machine with no key'ed BIOS, MS has already seen to that with new DRMs in Win8).
If we hand MS the keys, MS could destroy the entire PC industry with one mistake. Which would destroy the economy. All those machines all over the world that hold so much data that runs our planet, pfft. And those servers won't be running Linux after all, because MS prevented that from loading years before this tragedy took place.
And the mistake wouldn't even have to be MS's fault. I mean, how hard would it be for the Chinese to hack their way into the keys and disable the whole thing?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
This doesn't stop him from using computers the way he wants either.
Only those things that require a complete signed situation would. And if you load an unsigned binary into your Tivo? It doesn't work either.
These two things are ENTIRELY IDENTICAL.
Except one is a company called Tivo, the other is a company called Microsoft.
Can't we just disable UEFI and patch any signature/integrity checks for hardware without legacy support? Why should we care if they add unwanted features if we hack around it anyway?
That's great, Linus, very professional. I'm sorry I cannot converse with my coworkers the way you do, because I actually have to answer to someone. Some of us out here, Linus, practice something called, "getting along." It's possible to deal with someone's request which you do not like, from a person you might not like, without charging them with being Microsoft dick suckers. Believe me, it really is possible. I've disagreed with people myself over different issues at work without calling them Microsoft dick suckers. You might say something like, "I'm sorry, I don't want to do that for the reason's I will list here." Or, even, "I'm strongly opposed (While thinking, "you fucking MICROSOFT DICK SUCKER!") to doing this," all without publicly slamming them. One thing all this declaration of dick suckers does for me, it makes Open Source software that much more desirable. I mean, how can it be hard to deal with, or bad software, when people are yelling at each other and calling people "DICK SUCKERS" in public?
Linus performed coitus.
Extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice.
-- Barry Goldwater
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I think a lot of folks here are missing the point. The trouble is that the kernel running in secure boot mode has to be able to receive signed keys in a secure way (if you think secure boot is worth anything, many do not).
Linux running in secure boot mode is a done deal. The question is how do you import keys that are signed by Microsoft. In an ideal world you'd just upload the signed X.509 cert and you'd be done. Unfortunately, Microsoft will only sign PE binaries.
So the developers opted to enclose the X.509 cert in a PE binary. Unfortunately, that means the kernel needs to be able to read the PE binary and verify the signature all in kernel space, then extract the x,509 cert. This is undeniably messy.
Now lots of folks will argue that there's no point to this and it should be done in user space. I'm not going ti argue with that, but the reality is that most of the mechanics of this are already implemented, just not the PE stuff. You can sign kernel modules and verify them in kernel space with x.509 certs (at least by my reading of the thread).
Frankly, I think this is pretty much the only thing to do short of talking MS into signing x509 certs. The other suggested work-arounds involve additional authorities or doing stuff in user space. They are all workable, but are pretty clumsy compared to what's being proposed.
I think it may have been a mistake to just drop this ugly change on Linus without his involvement. My guess is that if the problem had been stated before coming up with a proposed implementaon, they might have come up with essentially the same solution with less drama.
Gentlemen, this is the War Room. You do not fight in the War Room.
God bless Linus.
Linus has standards that he will not compromise.
He sees this issue clearly and will not compromise.
Hopefully, he will not compromise in the future on this type of issue.
If he wants to cuss at any and all, so be it--my family does worse and I refuse to be a prude about it.
Would that all of us wore our big boy and big girls pants as well as he does.
PS. Posting as AC because I don't care.
Sheldon Cooper is based on Lubos Motl.
Well, unlike Jobs, Linus is creating/maintaining/guarding some of the most important code in the world... which is *free*. He can dick it up all he wants I say.
He doesn't create shit without a job and funding; and like Jobs business leaders with vision make it possible.
How often do you hear what Linus has to say to anyone? Most of what he says is boring and polite enough to not make the news. You can make anyone look like an arse if you cherry-pick the quotes. (Since the quotes have been selected for you, I'm not going to accuse you of trying to paint Linus in a bad light, but I hope you will keep my point in mind when reading gossip about celebrities.)
All else being equal, meritocracy is a good thing. That's no longer true when it's used as a justification to abuse, berate, and generally be an asshole.
PS just out of interest what's your criteria for 'get things done'? Your garbage man gets things done; would you be OK if he calls publicly berated you in front of your peers as a brain-dead shithead for putting out 3 bags instead of 2?
Civility costs nothing, and there is no excuse for its absence.
> Update: 02/25 17:24 GMT by U L : The headline/article are misleading...
Change your passwords, everyone! Slashdot has obviously been bitten by the hackers that got into Facebook, Apple, and now Microsoft. Don't worry admins, I'm here to help. Fixing a misleading story? EDITING, fer chrissakes?!? NOT ON MY WATCH, YOU DON'T!
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I wish I was good enough for Linus to insult me!
I understand where Linus is coming from, don't get your nickers in a twist - go back to fiddling with your iPad...
Shades of megalomania
Yes, and Bit9 "The Leader in Trust-based Security" was hacked for 5 months before they realized it.
YES YES! Tell them Linus! And, while your at it, why don't you personally resume development.
"Microsoft the 'universal' control of any desktops PCs running with UEFI secure boot"
It goes against any good business models to give a OS developer Universal Control over the Secure Boot Keys. It seems to me that Monopolies are illegal in the USA.
This would not be the first time Microsoft try a digital coup. Remember IE hardwired into the OS.
You have to give Macintosh credit for not suing people for taking Mac hardware and installing other operating system on that hardware.
Only fair option is to have the hardware manufactures create a consortium that does not bias against the OS as long as it supports Secure Boot. It seems to me those consortium's seem to work very well in the open source community.
As a consumer we should just refuse to buy any hardware or support any OS's that do not support fair business practices.
--- Just my few bits in cyberspace.
I always liked Linux, using it dual with Windows. I thougt some of the MS haters were a bit too much. But this restricted boot thing has pushed me. I won't never recommend, or use if i can avoid, or buy an MS product again. They can just go and fsck themselves.
What I find mind boggling is that the European Union went after Microsoft for being anti-competitive regarding their IE-'browser', media-player, closed/non-disclosed API's, ...
But still not a word about the whole UEFI secure boot scam, which in my opinion tops all previous complaints.
Yep, that'll drive business his way.
The problem I'm trying to solve is "Don't permit Linux to be used as a bootloader for backdoored versions of other operating systems". Any other security benefit is a happy side effect.-- Matthew Garrett
It's not like the guy posted a link to GOATSE or something.
And he probably should have. There are some vulgar
insult generators around that work OK too but I'll give
him credit for mildness where he deserves it.
Let me guess, you're one of those CVS fans?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Very very rarely have I seen Theo blow up at someone where it is not warranted. Especially the big companies that lie and lie again to him.
That's funny. I watched the video and came to the opposite conclusion. I liked the fact that he knew what was stupid and didn't have time to cover it up in nice words. Was there anything he said that you actually _disagreed_ with? Right.
Hi Microsoft,
I love google, cause you are sometimes so evil such a big dk.
No need thanks.
What is wrong/unpleasant in that video? I didn't watch the entire video as it is so long, I watched only random parts of it, but IMHO he sounded quite pleasant in it.
Maybe this is some kind of cultural thing, because I am Finnish. On the other hand, I find that sometimes he uses a bit too harsh language on mailing lists.
I had never seen Linus before so I decided to watch the video you linked. I did not get the feeling that he was a dick.
My impression was that he had done some public speaking before but there was an element of discomfort at first. He was definitely harsh on CVS and SVN. I suspect it was not quite as funny as he was hoping it would be.
Honestly, he seems to be a very open and readable person with no cloak and dagger political backstabbing bullshit. I have no idea if I would like him as a personal friend but I definitely like him as a person now.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Caving in to Microsoft is exactly the goal, by Microsoft. The entire UEFI Secure Boot issue is another attempt by Microsoft to control hardware, when they are a software company. While I can see benefits of trying to comply with Microsoft, I don't think it's the right thing especially for the end users because it sacrifices end users freedom to use their machine as they intend. Microsoft wants control over this, and we should not allow it. Unfortunately, PC vendors already have allowed it and passed this along to the users. I think the only real reason a user would need to have Secure Boot working is on a dual boot system. How about scrapping Windows, disable Secure Boot, and install your favourite flavor of GNU/Linux and call it good. If you need Windows, spin up a VM in VirtualBox and away you go.
What ever happened to articles that are unbiassed and dont cater to idiot minds that drool over other peoples conflicts. Now i can just read the title and assume Torvalds is a dick.
Windows 8 is unsurpassed by it's potential to be completely wiped off a hard drive. Really, it's AMAZING!
Fuck dual-booting. Fuck secure boot.
Linux shouldn't care about people who want to dual boot their systems. The method of choice today is virtual machines. So forget about dual-booting - it's an obsolete technology that shouldn't control how the OS is designed.
Forget secure boot. This is going to be bypassed by someone anyway - someway, sometime. Let Linux users turn it off in the hardware BIOS and forget about it. People who think their computer's security is going to depend on this secure boot technology are living in a fool's paradise. Even if the technology is not actually cracked and bypassed directly, the mere complexity of the OS and the applications running on top it means it's going to be bypassed de facto in user space just as it is today.
Do we really need all this extra complexity and ONE COMPANY owning the "keys to the kingdom" (literally) - especially as someone pointed out, anyone with a credit card can get a key signed by them or just steal the key from them - just to deal with boot loader malware and the odd occasion when some hacker gets physical access to the machine and boots a Linux Live CD?
Seriously?
I go along with Linus on this - this is nonsense from Microsoft for Microsoft's own agenda and people who have been brainwashed into thinking secure boot must be mandatory are basically idiots who don't understand security at all.
I'm someone who goes against the current infosec mantra that security controls should not interfere with business goals. I think security goals are by definition PART of a business' goals. But in this case I think the complexity and lack of cost-benefit of this particular security technology should rule it out.
If you want secure boot, then make it totally VENDOR-INDEPENDENT. That's the only way this is going to work.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Why all the swearing? Isn't Torvalds smart enough to express the exact same idea in a civil manner? To think that there was a big ruckus when Dujardin said "Putain".
-- Did you try Tao3D? http://tao3d.sourceforge.net
So how come we don't see anyone singing Steve Jobs' praise around here?
The hell with Dilbert, there should be a Linus calendar...
I unfortunately agree. Perhaps his more emotive output just gets a wider airing, but every time I hear quotes from Linus these days, he's 'blasting' someone for their opinion, riddled with sexual expletives. He wrote a brilliant OS kernel, but that doesn't stop him from being a dick, and sadly, thats exactly how he comes across to me these days.
Since the Garratts were locomotives built to be looking two ways !!
Seriously, all this secureboot nonsense only amounts to security via obscurity if the root key is also allowed to sign microsoft operating systems.
Any security you configure on a dual boot system will be compromised, as soon as you fire up windows.
Let's keep these patches out until someone really needs them, and in those cases, why can't they just patch their kernel?
Unlike Linus, Guido is stupid.
He was kind to CVS and SVN. Far too kind. That shit needs to be drug out back and shot.