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.
Well.. we have found Steve Ballmer's account name on Slashdot apparently...
He claims to love Linux, but what he really loves is himself.
Kinda puts that whole 'dick-sucking contest' comment in a whole new light, doesn't it?
I'd love to see the two having an argument.
Given that Linux is running on everything from my phone to my sat-nav to (some of) my clients to (some of) my servers and just about every oddball bit of embedded hardware in my entire workplace, I don't think Linux is suffering much.
And what he's basically doing is telling MS, and MS sycophants, that he doesn't want an OS where MS has to "sign off" on any changes in the bootloaders, etc. to make sure they are "secure". It's like being told that all pensions in the world now have to be signed off by Robert Maxwell, who can revoke your ability to use yours (even if you're nothing to do with him) on a whim.
The day MS lets in a bit of code into their OS that lets Linus turn off any and all Windows machines he wants - whether on a whim or for a good reason - and that they have to run past him every time they want a change made, that's the day I'll let someone put MS-signed junk into a Linux kernel that I use.
I dunno... If you read the entire conversation in context it's not that bad and seems more like a slight fist shaking rather than explosion.
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.
Linux is a kernel. Not an OS.
The only thing Garrett was doing in this case was recognizing a problem going forward, and fixing it.
Attempting to make the Linux kernel dependent on Microsoft is exacerbating a problem.
Now hold on, everyone criticizes GNOME, and why condemn Linus for making a perfectly valid observation about the OpenBSD team?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
Well, if you read the mail conversation you'll know the majority of developers came out in agreeance with Linus and his views.on the matter. He has said he's tried being nicer, it just isn't him though. He is usual right though and when wrong accepts it. He is an extremely good maintainer regardless of peoples opinions on him.
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.
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.
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
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.
I see SuSe and debian used daily in professional environments.
RedHat is only big with a small group of Enterprises more interested in red tape and bureaucracy than getting work done. RedHat would have no product without Linus.
I have some friends that talk like that when they're completely calm. You can't gauge how emotional this response is based on the words alone.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
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.
No, he moved to America.
The Linux kernel is not beholden to any business interest. Given the various user-space shenanigans (systemd, udev) over the past year, I'm not surprised by his response.
Trying to move user space items into the kernel that are not universally beneficial, or conversely trying to manipulate kernel space in ways that break long standing POSIX functionality - without a clear consensus from the community - is asking for it.
For all his faults, Linus has managed to keep the kernel relevant for a very large array of hardware in the face of these pressures.
First of all, its not just ideological that he doesn't want such specific code in the Linux kernel. For the same reason he doesn't want to put tools/kvm in the kernel, its not germane to BEING A KERNEL so its NOT going into the kernel! read the mail yourself. Its like a government program, in that its likely to live forever, however, Linus wants Linux to outlast Microsoft AND RedHat and that code will become vestigial as soon as microsoft moves on to some other way to control hardware vendors. On the other hand, do servers need secure boot? NO, do tablets need secure boot? NO. So this is Linus admonishing developers for even SUGGESTING to include such a corner case in the code of the linux kernel.
Because when people do something retarded like give Microsoft control over booting Linux on PCs, that's the kind of response they deserve.
As an OpenBSD user and enthusiast for 12 years, I find your remarks very offensive. Linus is NOT an asshole, Theo de Raadt is the one True Asshole, and that why we love him.
Fortune 500 would be the small group of enterprises that value red tape over getting shit done.
Working for one you should know that.
I dunno... If you read the entire conversation in context it's not that bad and seems more like a slight fist shaking rather than explosion.
He talks about "dick sucking", so of course it involves both a fist shaking and an explosion.
No, he moved to America.
I haven't seen a single photo of him with an assault rifle and mullet.
While others have already said 'this specific bit *IS* Microsoft's', I'll also say that UEFI is largely designed around MS conventions and requirements, just like BIOS specs were in the 1980s.
UEFI interfaces are defined in terms of Microsoft calling conventions and using a binary format defined by Microsoft. The behavior of the system clock is defined in terms of MS expectation of local timezone instead of GMT. All of these things are areas where MS has explicitly deviated from everyone else in the industry, and UEFI happens to follow MS on every last single deviation that presents itself.
At the core of UEFI, it's genesis was Intel trying to push an incompatible architecture (Itanium) and working closely with MS to assure there would be 'a' Windows running on it which was perceived to be the sole requirement to make the industry dump x86, even if it couldn't run x86 compiled applications. Thinks have evolved from there, but that relationship still defines most of what UEFI continues to be.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Actually, his criticisms aren't about personal computing freedom and secureboot. His criticism is that crafting a PE executable for the express purposes of containing certificate data is utterly asinine. The correct response would be for MS to accomodate signing data in the more usual ways. I suspect a proposol to wrap the x509 data with a dummy ELF file would be met with similar rejection. The difference being no one would propose such a dumbass approach so we'd never find out, it's only thanks to MS dickishness that such a workaround would even be proposed.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
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.
This isn't "ideological bs" any more. In order to BOOT AND RUN Linux on newer Hardware "sold for Windows 8" you must have a signed bios loader. Red Hat COULD have petitioned for their OWN code to be used, but instead "rent" a key from Microsoft.
Pnce the old stock flushes, We are just a few month away from EVERY MOTHERBOARD SOLD to require Microsoft's PERMISSION to boot another OS. Not just Dells or HPs pre-configured, but companies are now pushed to sell only "Windows Motherboards" whether you decide to buy Windows or not!
Even APPLE hardware isn't locked down THAT tightly. We've already had cases where the ol' "API works for Windows" bit not the signed Microsoft alternate-OS key... Out of Samsung notebooks.
We are back to 1999 and using obscure bugs in the "open" hardware to lock Alternate OSes out of the hardware market... For good. Hope you like Rasperry Pi because niche, custom hardware is the only stuff that will FREELY run Linux from this point on.
That's not cussing, it's Perl. Relax guys.
Table-ized A.I.
No, he moved to America.
I haven't seen a single photo of him with an assault rifle and mullet.
Now you have.