I never said Secure Boot was not a Microsoft initiative. What I (and others) have said is that THIS PROBLEM has nothing to do with secure boot, and your ranting about Microsoft does not change that fact. THIS PROBLEM seems to be a problem with either Samsung's UEFI implementation or Linux. Neither one of those has a damn thing to do with Microsoft. And UEFI itself is an INTEL initiative, and existed long before Secure Boot.
UEFI (and Secure Boot) are nothing but specifications. Blaming the specification (or even odder, it's author) for someone's failure in implementing the spec is ridiculous. To you blame Tim Berners-Lee every time a web server gets hacked?
Whining because hardware manufacturers place most of their effort on things that most of their customers care about is just childish. Samsung's failure to test with Linux has NOTHING to do with Microsoft.
UEFI is a replacement for BIOS. As their web page puts it: The UEFI specification defines a new model for the interface between personal-computer operating systems and platform firmware. The interface consists of data tables that contain platform-related information, plus boot and runtime service calls that are available to the operating system and its loader. Together, these provide a standard environment for booting an operating system and running pre-boot applications.
Secure boot is an optional feature of UEFI which can be used to ensure that the boot image being loaded by UEFI is from a trusted source.
The problems described in this article have nothing to do with secure boot.
I don'tknow why you would have to do that. I guess it is because you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
You don't need a 'signing key' from anybody to boot with UEFI. You do have to have a properly signed loader to boot a system with secure boot enabled, but that is not the same thing as booting with UEFI, and has nothing to do with the problem being discussed.
Even when using secure boot, you don't need Microsoft to do anything. You can sign your own stuff if you want. If you want to distribute your signed code to others, then they must trust the key that you used to sign. So, you can either a) tell every user how to go about importing your key, b) work with hardware vendors to get them to include your key, or c) sign with a key the user already has. SOME (but not all) Linux vendors decided to make life easy on their customers by having Microsoft sign for them.
Hmm, let's see who is behind UEFI, shall we? AMD, AMI, Apple, Dell, HP, IBM, Insyde, Intel, Lenovo, Microsoft, Phoenix. Yup, Linux haters all. Obviously this is all Microsoft's fault.
My point was that none of the companies he mentioned have open source as a business model. Sure, they all use open source software as a tool. But claiming they are 'FOSS-based businesses' is just silly. You may as well claim they are 'realty-based businesses' because they shop for the cheapest location to have their datacenters, or 'Square D-based businesses' because their electricity goes through a Square-D load center, or 'Cisco-based businesses' because they have some Cisco equipment. Amazon is a retailer, Google, Facebook, et al are advertising companies. Open source may make it cheaper for them to do business, but it itself is not their business, and they could run the exact same businesses without FOSS, although perhaps not as profitably.
IBM doesn't fit his blessed three? How so? According to their earnings report, in the last quarter they sold more mainframe capacity than they ever did before, and over half of that was for 'new workload' engines. Linux is a huge part of that 'new workload'. So that falls squarely in his 'sell hardware' category.
IBM also has a very large services division, so that falls squarely in his 'sell services' category.
However, there is one more reason IBM supports Linux so heavily - so that they can sell proprietary software that runs on it. Many of those Linux engines that they sold are going to be running DB2, WebSphere, Domino, etc.
And are you seriously trying to claim that those other companies owe their success to FOSS? Amazon is not successful (or cheaper than the competition) because of FOSS, it is because they don't have the overhead of stores. Google, Facebook, and Twitter are not successful (or cheaper than the competition) because of FOSS, they are successful because they created a product people want.
That is bad, but I think much worse is a geographically dispersed "team" (like some people on US east coast, some west coast, some Asia, some Europe). Come in at 9AM, need to ask a question of another team member who won't be at work for another 12 hours, wait a whole day for a simple response, repeat as needed.
If the "whole point" of protests is to be disruptive, as you claim, then there is no reason for them to be legal at all. You have no right to be disruptive.
Of course the "whole point" of protests (effective ones anyway) is to make your message heard. You do have a right to say your message. Which is why DDOS attacks will never be legal - there is no message, only disruption.
Being in a place of business for something other than what the business intends is not legal behavior, it is trespassing. The only reason sit-ins are effective at all is because of the media circus that accompanies the inevitable arrest of the protesters.
A more apt analogy is abortion clinic protesters, and courts have repeatedly found that while they can be near the clinics, wave their signs, whatever, they can NOT block access to the clinic.
The whole purpose of patents is NOT (and has never been) "to provide inventors with the ability to get these items to market". The purpose of patents is to encourage advancing the state of the art, which in no way requires bringing a product to market. The method used to do this is by issuing patents, which provides value, and thus an incentive, to the inventor. Manufacturing and licensing are completely different disciplines than inventing, and there is absolutely no reason an inventor should not be able to do whatever he wants with his invention, including selling the rights to it.
Patent trolls who sit on patents for years and the spring the on people after the invention has been is use for years are a problem. Screwing the inventor by making patents non-transferrable is not the solution.
He is not complaining about attire. A 'hoody mentality' is when you act like someone who is wearing a hoody - insulated from what is going on around you. That is a bad quality in a CEO - you need to know what is going on around you, and others need to know what you are thinking.
Yes, but now you've moved from 'anyone with wireshark' to 'anyone with wireshark and access to the private key'. That is surely a much, much smaller group of people.
If you don't trust Nokia to handle this 'remote display' correctly, why do you trust them at all? How do know know they don't have keyloggers on your phone, or any other nerfarious things that could be done?
Florida has one of the lowest overall tax burdens in the whole country. There is no personal income tax. That 'welfare queen' has a whole lot to do with that.
Well if that is your level of paranoia, there are several other things you should be worried about now, even before they implement this.
The hotel staff can watch you get on the bus to the parks, so they know it is safe to ruffle.
Assuming (as you are) that the hotel staff will have access to this information, they can tell that you entered a park (your room key is your park ticket), and it is safe to ruffle.
Again on the same assumption, they can tell that you just accessed a Fast Pass machine, and will probably be on ride abc at a specific time. Both times would be good for ruffling.
They can tell where and when you have dining reservations, more opportunity for ruffling.
They can tell that you just made a purchase somewhere in a park (transaction with your room key)
Or, and this one is really scary, they could have a friend act as a lookout while they ruffle through your belongings!
Which you can easily opt out of. All you need to do is show ID to prove that you are the same person who used the ticket previously. If even says that right on their FAQ page.
The spikes aren't providing traction or propulsion, they are holding it above the surface. It moves by inertia. There are three spinning disks that they change the rotation of, and that change in rotation makes the thing 'fall over', and hence move.
Instead spending time writing your little PC rant, you could have just read TFA.
Four days after they removed the equipment, a man identifying himself as "Jay" left a message for a maintenance worker at the bank building, police say. When the worker returned the call, "Jay" asked if he'd taken his equipment. The answer: No, but the cops did.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said Secure Boot was not a Microsoft initiative. What I (and others) have said is that THIS PROBLEM has nothing to do with secure boot, and your ranting about Microsoft does not change that fact. THIS PROBLEM seems to be a problem with either Samsung's UEFI implementation or Linux. Neither one of those has a damn thing to do with Microsoft. And UEFI itself is an INTEL initiative, and existed long before Secure Boot.
UEFI (and Secure Boot) are nothing but specifications. Blaming the specification (or even odder, it's author) for someone's failure in implementing the spec is ridiculous. To you blame Tim Berners-Lee every time a web server gets hacked?
Whining because hardware manufacturers place most of their effort on things that most of their customers care about is just childish. Samsung's failure to test with Linux has NOTHING to do with Microsoft.
UEFI is a replacement for BIOS. As their web page puts it: The UEFI specification defines a new model for the interface between personal-computer operating systems and platform firmware. The interface consists of data tables that contain platform-related information, plus boot and runtime service calls that are available to the operating system and its loader. Together, these provide a standard environment for booting an operating system and running pre-boot applications.
Secure boot is an optional feature of UEFI which can be used to ensure that the boot image being loaded by UEFI is from a trusted source.
The problems described in this article have nothing to do with secure boot.
I don'tknow why you would have to do that. I guess it is because you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
You don't need a 'signing key' from anybody to boot with UEFI. You do have to have a properly signed loader to boot a system with secure boot enabled, but that is not the same thing as booting with UEFI, and has nothing to do with the problem being discussed.
Even when using secure boot, you don't need Microsoft to do anything. You can sign your own stuff if you want. If you want to distribute your signed code to others, then they must trust the key that you used to sign. So, you can either a) tell every user how to go about importing your key, b) work with hardware vendors to get them to include your key, or c) sign with a key the user already has. SOME (but not all) Linux vendors decided to make life easy on their customers by having Microsoft sign for them.
And this has nothing at all to do with secure boot, so what is your point?
Hmm, let's see who is behind UEFI, shall we? AMD, AMI, Apple, Dell, HP, IBM, Insyde, Intel, Lenovo, Microsoft, Phoenix. Yup, Linux haters all. Obviously this is all Microsoft's fault.
My point was that none of the companies he mentioned have open source as a business model. Sure, they all use open source software as a tool. But claiming they are 'FOSS-based businesses' is just silly. You may as well claim they are 'realty-based businesses' because they shop for the cheapest location to have their datacenters, or 'Square D-based businesses' because their electricity goes through a Square-D load center, or 'Cisco-based businesses' because they have some Cisco equipment. Amazon is a retailer, Google, Facebook, et al are advertising companies. Open source may make it cheaper for them to do business, but it itself is not their business, and they could run the exact same businesses without FOSS, although perhaps not as profitably.
IBM doesn't fit his blessed three? How so? According to their earnings report, in the last quarter they sold more mainframe capacity than they ever did before, and over half of that was for 'new workload' engines. Linux is a huge part of that 'new workload'. So that falls squarely in his 'sell hardware' category.
IBM also has a very large services division, so that falls squarely in his 'sell services' category.
However, there is one more reason IBM supports Linux so heavily - so that they can sell proprietary software that runs on it. Many of those Linux engines that they sold are going to be running DB2, WebSphere, Domino, etc.
And are you seriously trying to claim that those other companies owe their success to FOSS? Amazon is not successful (or cheaper than the competition) because of FOSS, it is because they don't have the overhead of stores. Google, Facebook, and Twitter are not successful (or cheaper than the competition) because of FOSS, they are successful because they created a product people want.
What are you (and the summary) talking about? The judge ruled exactly the same way as the judges in the file sharing cases.
That is bad, but I think much worse is a geographically dispersed "team" (like some people on US east coast, some west coast, some Asia, some Europe). Come in at 9AM, need to ask a question of another team member who won't be at work for another 12 hours, wait a whole day for a simple response, repeat as needed.
If the "whole point" of protests is to be disruptive, as you claim, then there is no reason for them to be legal at all. You have no right to be disruptive.
Of course the "whole point" of protests (effective ones anyway) is to make your message heard. You do have a right to say your message. Which is why DDOS attacks will never be legal - there is no message, only disruption.
Being in a place of business for something other than what the business intends is not legal behavior, it is trespassing. The only reason sit-ins are effective at all is because of the media circus that accompanies the inevitable arrest of the protesters.
A more apt analogy is abortion clinic protesters, and courts have repeatedly found that while they can be near the clinics, wave their signs, whatever, they can NOT block access to the clinic.
The whole purpose of patents is NOT (and has never been) "to provide inventors with the ability to get these items to market". The purpose of patents is to encourage advancing the state of the art, which in no way requires bringing a product to market. The method used to do this is by issuing patents, which provides value, and thus an incentive, to the inventor. Manufacturing and licensing are completely different disciplines than inventing, and there is absolutely no reason an inventor should not be able to do whatever he wants with his invention, including selling the rights to it.
Patent trolls who sit on patents for years and the spring the on people after the invention has been is use for years are a problem. Screwing the inventor by making patents non-transferrable is not the solution.
He is not complaining about attire. A 'hoody mentality' is when you act like someone who is wearing a hoody - insulated from what is going on around you. That is a bad quality in a CEO - you need to know what is going on around you, and others need to know what you are thinking.
Yes, but now you've moved from 'anyone with wireshark' to 'anyone with wireshark and access to the private key'. That is surely a much, much smaller group of people.
If you don't trust Nokia to handle this 'remote display' correctly, why do you trust them at all? How do know know they don't have keyloggers on your phone, or any other nerfarious things that could be done?
What good would that do? The traffic is still encrypted between the phone and the proxy, and the proxy and the 'real' destination.
My daughter just did the college program. She did not pay to do it (other than housing).
Florida has one of the lowest overall tax burdens in the whole country. There is no personal income tax. That 'welfare queen' has a whole lot to do with that.
Well if that is your level of paranoia, there are several other things you should be worried about now, even before they implement this.
The hotel staff can watch you get on the bus to the parks, so they know it is safe to ruffle.
Assuming (as you are) that the hotel staff will have access to this information, they can tell that you entered a park (your room key is your park ticket), and it is safe to ruffle.
Again on the same assumption, they can tell that you just accessed a Fast Pass machine, and will probably be on ride abc at a specific time. Both times would be good for ruffling.
They can tell where and when you have dining reservations, more opportunity for ruffling.
They can tell that you just made a purchase somewhere in a park (transaction with your room key)
Or, and this one is really scary, they could have a friend act as a lookout while they ruffle through your belongings!
It IS opt in. It is so opt-in that you have to PAY for it.
Enlighten me on exactly what is so valuable about knowing someone is Disney Customer 00123865387.
Which you can easily opt out of. All you need to do is show ID to prove that you are the same person who used the ticket previously. If even says that right on their FAQ page.
Inventor Publisher is an Autodesk program. The summary says Adobe. The OP was making a joke. Microsoft has nothing to do with it.
The spikes aren't providing traction or propulsion, they are holding it above the surface. It moves by inertia. There are three spinning disks that they change the rotation of, and that change in rotation makes the thing 'fall over', and hence move.
Instead spending time writing your little PC rant, you could have just read TFA.
Four days after they removed the equipment, a man identifying himself as "Jay" left a message for a maintenance worker at the bank building, police say. When the worker returned the call, "Jay" asked if he'd taken his equipment. The answer: No, but the cops did.