I never said random. Just that to start doing ANYTHING, you need to enter a fingerprint of the inserted install medium. That would be truth for MS, but also Linux, Apple or FreeBSD products. For big vendors, printing the fingerprint on the CD or on a web site would be enough.
Don't you worry, the secure boot system is anyway totally compromised to begin with. Anyone with a fake ID and 90 USD will be able to buy a trusted key from Microsoft. This is even more silly than the current CA system.
What you have to understand here, is that Ubuntu is only adding yet another layer of vendor lock. It's not better than the one from Microsoft.
The only REAL and TRUE freedom and equality would have been to ask all users to first type a fingerprint before they can use their computer for the first time. Having keys already installed in the BIOS by default is a pure travesty.
And don't tell me that too hard to do for the average user. There's in fact only 2 categories for which it is the case: blind people and those who shouldn't ever touch a computer anyway.
Well if you hate all powerful graphics cards, use Intel onboard something.
I failed to find some at www.rue-montgallet.com (the most used site for searching for hardware price in Paris), and was in the impression that Intel cards were the exceptions, and were hard to find.
If you don't want their product you buy something else. Vote with your wallet.
The point is: I can't. And that's what is not fair. If I'm wrong, please point me to a graphic card which is easily available everywhere, and which is not ATI nor Nvidia.
Yeah, and they solved that problem. An entire module rebuild facility for kernel upgrades was probably developed just for Nvidia.
Are you talking about DKMS? If that's the case, then you probably heard about UEFI secure boot? You know, that thing where everything, including the kernel AND the kernel drivers will have to be signed? I don't know if you got me, so I'll make it more clear: if you want to use UEFI secure boot, then you can't use DKMS, so we'll be fucked and the "upgrade destroyed my X setup" crap will happen again.
Of course, but the point it still there. No one owes anyone anything. Nvidia has absolutely zero responsibility to make their chips work with Linux. They are free to decide exactly which platforms they want to support. Some people in the Linux community is however so used to getting everything they want for free that they for some reason think that they should have everything for free and that companies that don't do that are somehow evil. No they are not evil, it just happens that they are not especially friendly either. It is fair.
No, it's totally unfair. Have you ever shopped for a graphic card recently, with the goal to put that in your Linux box? There's currently only 2 choices: Nvidia or ATI. Both have totally horrible drivers in Linux, because the chip makers aren't being COOPERATIVE. That is, just not giving enough so that someone can make a decent driver. The problem isn't that Nvidia isn't helping, the problem is that they aren't helping AND we have no other choice.
I hate to be in such a position that I'm forced into buying a product that:
1/ I don't like (cards are too big, often with stupid fans)
2/ Is too expensive for what it does (I'm just asking for my computer output on DVI / HDMI / VGA... what's that hard and expensive to make?)
3/ Has features which I don't care about (eg: 3D and gaming shit...)
But there's simply no alternatives.
The only thing I'd like would be to have a fucking decent card that I can plug on a screen (if possible, multiple, all supported). But in this day and age, it's not possible to have simply THAT, working correctly. So yes, we do have all the reasons to hate Nvidia and ATI/AMD.
Oh, another one. Again, nobody asks for software, just documentation. It'd be even better if they were not even shipping at all a Linux driver, because their non-free stupid software is crap. In fact, I HATE as well the bloated screen configuration that Nvidia delivers on their site. It's simply not convenient at all. To switch from the laptop's screen to TV, you need around 15 clicks. Also, why should we use something special for Nvidia, and not the screen manager that's in Gnome by default? This proprietary software needs to DIE, especially that we have no choice but that one.
Nobody asked Nvidia to do any driver. Linus is here complaining that they aren't COOPERATIVE. That's very different. Besides that, yes, it should be Nvidia's job, since they are the ship makers. Also, they do use Linux themselves. So they just take, and don't give, which isn't fair.
it's lunacy to claim that the UN is being pushed as a world government
No, not my point. Maybe that's English mistake on my side. If so, sorry.
Are you saying that you believe there is no secrecy in the agenda pushing the UN to be a NWO authority
Well, it's mostly done in the open now. Before, we could say it was something the elite was thinking about in secret, I don't think that's the case anymore. If someone doesn't see the master plan, then he's not watching. I could though agree that some of the details might be partly secret for the moments, but we're seeing the big picture. Like everything, it's going to be gradually and incrementally done, so that nobody quickly goes to protest (it's the story of the frog in the water that heats up slowly, if you know it).
By the way, the transfer of power from the state to a foreign or international organization is also against the French constitution. Our president's role is to protect us (I mean me and the other French) from this. There's a party in France called UPR which is against Europe talking about this too (at the European level though, but the sovereignty principle is the same).
Other distros have other rules, including as you indicate outsourcing the package maintance to a third party outside of the distro's control.
That's not what I said. What I wrote is that distributions like Debian aren't maintaining upstream author's code, because we don't have enough people to do that. So if upstream takes the decision to go on one direction, there's going to be nobody to maintain an old version or a fork of upstream code.
Though, if you guys, who are complaining, are proposing yourself to maintain stuff like kde 3.5 and Gnome 2.3 in Debian 7 (code name Wheezy), then I guess that would be possible (well, we freeze in 8 days, so maybe that's too late, but you got the idea...).
Thomas
You might want considering using socket files rather than networking though, when connecting to MySQL (eg: use localhost and not 127.0.0.1). Or even better: let the MySQL client library decide for you (eg, don't specify -h). It might sound silly, but even PHP authors didn't understand the fact that a correctly MySQL client lib doesn't need the host to be specified.
It's all down to how much time you can invest in maintaining something that isn't maintained upstream. Clearly, a distribution like Debian doesn't have enough manpower to do it.
I have absolutely no doubts that there are conspiracies in this world. But in all conspiracies, there's secrecy. The fact that the UN is slowly transforming into a supreme authority isn't secret at all. The fact that many propose that the UN does Internet regulation either. And by the way... I don't watch TV.:)
We are talking here about package maintainer not upstream authors. That's a big difference. You don't expect someone who maintain packages to ALSO fork something as big as KDE, do you? Or maybe you don't care about security patches?
TWM is one of the oldest window manager. Its long name is "Tab Window Manager". I remember using it on a Dec Alpha 120 MHz (using OSF1, also called digital Unix), in the 90s. Wikipedia has some nice screenshots: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twm
Something you probably don't get though, is that distributions have no choice. They don't make decisions for upstream authors, THEY decide to fu**-up, and package maintainers just take that, because that's going to be the only thing that upstream does support for.
This being said, I 100% agree with your "WTF" moments, and the fact that I don't like the GUI I've spent so much time with may change radically. In fact, I'm currently using GNOME 2, and I still think KDE 3.5 was better. I'll probably switch to LXDE when I'll have to upgrade form Squeeze to Wheezy. It's getting worse on each upgrade...
Fucking hell, please don't write this way. I talked out of what I thought I learned from debian-devel@, and I wasn't trying to do propaganda.
it is perceived to be more secure than OS kernel, even though it is not.
I can't tell about the issues with VMWare, but I'm sure that there's less virtualization specific holes than kernel root exploits. So in this way, yes, virtualization is more secure than let's say a simple chrootuid (even with a grsec kernel).
Then why in the world you spew bullshit that you have heard somewhere
Because that "somewhere" is not just a random place, it's the debian-devel list, with many knowledgeable people reading it, and which I consider a valuable source. And there was nobody to tell that the blog post was wrong, not even guys from the kernel team when discussing the mater. I don't pretend that I know better than them, and I do trust them. Still, this was a mistake this time, and I understand it now.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said random. Just that to start doing ANYTHING, you need to enter a fingerprint of the inserted install medium. That would be truth for MS, but also Linux, Apple or FreeBSD products. For big vendors, printing the fingerprint on the CD or on a web site would be enough.
Don't you worry, the secure boot system is anyway totally compromised to begin with. Anyone with a fake ID and 90 USD will be able to buy a trusted key from Microsoft. This is even more silly than the current CA system.
What you have to understand here, is that Ubuntu is only adding yet another layer of vendor lock. It's not better than the one from Microsoft.
The only REAL and TRUE freedom and equality would have been to ask all users to first type a fingerprint before they can use their computer for the first time. Having keys already installed in the BIOS by default is a pure travesty.
And don't tell me that too hard to do for the average user. There's in fact only 2 categories for which it is the case: blind people and those who shouldn't ever touch a computer anyway.
Yeah! And it comes with a tic-tac-toe game as main OS screen, so you'll have fun! :)
Well if you hate all powerful graphics cards, use Intel onboard something.
I failed to find some at www.rue-montgallet.com (the most used site for searching for hardware price in Paris), and was in the impression that Intel cards were the exceptions, and were hard to find.
Well, I quite know and like the Intel chips, it's just quite hard to find. At least, I didn't.
Interesting. So things really have CHANGED with ATI boards? I thought it was still the same pain with the fglrx drivers (or whatever it's called..).
Sorry, but you didn't understand what EFI secure boot is about.
If you don't want their product you buy something else. Vote with your wallet.
The point is: I can't. And that's what is not fair. If I'm wrong, please point me to a graphic card which is easily available everywhere, and which is not ATI nor Nvidia.
Yeah, and they solved that problem. An entire module rebuild facility for kernel upgrades was probably developed just for Nvidia.
Are you talking about DKMS? If that's the case, then you probably heard about UEFI secure boot? You know, that thing where everything, including the kernel AND the kernel drivers will have to be signed? I don't know if you got me, so I'll make it more clear: if you want to use UEFI secure boot, then you can't use DKMS, so we'll be fucked and the "upgrade destroyed my X setup" crap will happen again.
Of course, but the point it still there. No one owes anyone anything. Nvidia has absolutely zero responsibility to make their chips work with Linux. They are free to decide exactly which platforms they want to support. Some people in the Linux community is however so used to getting everything they want for free that they for some reason think that they should have everything for free and that companies that don't do that are somehow evil. No they are not evil, it just happens that they are not especially friendly either. It is fair.
No, it's totally unfair. Have you ever shopped for a graphic card recently, with the goal to put that in your Linux box? There's currently only 2 choices: Nvidia or ATI. Both have totally horrible drivers in Linux, because the chip makers aren't being COOPERATIVE. That is, just not giving enough so that someone can make a decent driver. The problem isn't that Nvidia isn't helping, the problem is that they aren't helping AND we have no other choice.
I hate to be in such a position that I'm forced into buying a product that:
1/ I don't like (cards are too big, often with stupid fans)
2/ Is too expensive for what it does (I'm just asking for my computer output on DVI / HDMI / VGA... what's that hard and expensive to make?)
3/ Has features which I don't care about (eg: 3D and gaming shit...)
But there's simply no alternatives.
The only thing I'd like would be to have a fucking decent card that I can plug on a screen (if possible, multiple, all supported). But in this day and age, it's not possible to have simply THAT, working correctly. So yes, we do have all the reasons to hate Nvidia and ATI/AMD.
Oh, another one. Again, nobody asks for software, just documentation. It'd be even better if they were not even shipping at all a Linux driver, because their non-free stupid software is crap. In fact, I HATE as well the bloated screen configuration that Nvidia delivers on their site. It's simply not convenient at all. To switch from the laptop's screen to TV, you need around 15 clicks. Also, why should we use something special for Nvidia, and not the screen manager that's in Gnome by default? This proprietary software needs to DIE, especially that we have no choice but that one.
Nobody asked Nvidia to do any driver. Linus is here complaining that they aren't COOPERATIVE. That's very different. Besides that, yes, it should be Nvidia's job, since they are the ship makers. Also, they do use Linux themselves. So they just take, and don't give, which isn't fair.
Well, for me, Rand Paul has stopped being an alternative when he vouched for Romney. His father has yet to explain his view on the topic.
Well, DJB is famous for his very strong views, I wouldn't give this as an example! :)
But nobody stood up to maintain such packages in Debian... At the end, it's all down to volunteers, and there was none.
it's lunacy to claim that the UN is being pushed as a world government
No, not my point. Maybe that's English mistake on my side. If so, sorry.
Are you saying that you believe there is no secrecy in the agenda pushing the UN to be a NWO authority
Well, it's mostly done in the open now. Before, we could say it was something the elite was thinking about in secret, I don't think that's the case anymore. If someone doesn't see the master plan, then he's not watching. I could though agree that some of the details might be partly secret for the moments, but we're seeing the big picture. Like everything, it's going to be gradually and incrementally done, so that nobody quickly goes to protest (it's the story of the frog in the water that heats up slowly, if you know it).
By the way, the transfer of power from the state to a foreign or international organization is also against the French constitution. Our president's role is to protect us (I mean me and the other French) from this. There's a party in France called UPR which is against Europe talking about this too (at the European level though, but the sovereignty principle is the same).
Other distros have other rules, including as you indicate outsourcing the package maintance to a third party outside of the distro's control.
That's not what I said. What I wrote is that distributions like Debian aren't maintaining upstream author's code, because we don't have enough people to do that. So if upstream takes the decision to go on one direction, there's going to be nobody to maintain an old version or a fork of upstream code.
Though, if you guys, who are complaining, are proposing yourself to maintain stuff like kde 3.5 and Gnome 2.3 in Debian 7 (code name Wheezy), then I guess that would be possible (well, we freeze in 8 days, so maybe that's too late, but you got the idea...). Thomas
You might want considering using socket files rather than networking though, when connecting to MySQL (eg: use localhost and not 127.0.0.1). Or even better: let the MySQL client library decide for you (eg, don't specify -h). It might sound silly, but even PHP authors didn't understand the fact that a correctly MySQL client lib doesn't need the host to be specified.
It's all down to how much time you can invest in maintaining something that isn't maintained upstream. Clearly, a distribution like Debian doesn't have enough manpower to do it.
I have absolutely no doubts that there are conspiracies in this world. But in all conspiracies, there's secrecy. The fact that the UN is slowly transforming into a supreme authority isn't secret at all. The fact that many propose that the UN does Internet regulation either. And by the way... I don't watch TV. :)
We are talking here about package maintainer not upstream authors. That's a big difference. You don't expect someone who maintain packages to ALSO fork something as big as KDE, do you? Or maybe you don't care about security patches?
Maybe you should consider switching to a less retarded distro...
TWM is one of the oldest window manager. Its long name is "Tab Window Manager". I remember using it on a Dec Alpha 120 MHz (using OSF1, also called digital Unix), in the 90s. Wikipedia has some nice screenshots: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twm
olwm (OPEN LOOK Virtual Window Manager) is quite old too... http://xwinman.org/olvwm.php
I'm forced to maintain a Windows 7 x64 partition for Diablo III, netflix
Who or what is forcing you to watch film and play games? :)
Something you probably don't get though, is that distributions have no choice. They don't make decisions for upstream authors, THEY decide to fu**-up, and package maintainers just take that, because that's going to be the only thing that upstream does support for.
This being said, I 100% agree with your "WTF" moments, and the fact that I don't like the GUI I've spent so much time with may change radically. In fact, I'm currently using GNOME 2, and I still think KDE 3.5 was better. I'll probably switch to LXDE when I'll have to upgrade form Squeeze to Wheezy. It's getting worse on each upgrade...
You talked out of your ass.
Fucking hell, please don't write this way. I talked out of what I thought I learned from debian-devel@, and I wasn't trying to do propaganda.
it is perceived to be more secure than OS kernel, even though it is not.
I can't tell about the issues with VMWare, but I'm sure that there's less virtualization specific holes than kernel root exploits. So in this way, yes, virtualization is more secure than let's say a simple chrootuid (even with a grsec kernel).
Then why in the world you spew bullshit that you have heard somewhere
Because that "somewhere" is not just a random place, it's the debian-devel list, with many knowledgeable people reading it, and which I consider a valuable source. And there was nobody to tell that the blog post was wrong, not even guys from the kernel team when discussing the mater. I don't pretend that I know better than them, and I do trust them. Still, this was a mistake this time, and I understand it now.