It was years ago (2010'ish). I was getting iOS to localize currency amounts and dates. Testing was done in English, French and German and things seemed fine -- yeah my bad for using such similar languages. The crash occurred with a Scandinavian user, I don't recall the particular language. The fix was simple, I believe I merely had to specify that I wanted UTF8 rather than the default.
I've changed version control systems since then so I don't have the check-in history handy.
Red Hat and Ubuntu could probably get their keys recognized
You're completely missing the point.
Having Red Hat or Ubuntu get their keys recognized is not even slightly good enough. Every user who recompiles his kernel gets his own unique key, and needs to have that recognized! The ability for the kernel to be recompiled by the user is the entire fucking point, and is not negotiable. Therefore, secure boot is an existential threat to Free Software!
Actually I understood the point instantly upon reading the summary. However get signed software updates and upgrades from Red Hat and Ubuntu would be just fine for most Linux users.
For others they will be inconvenienced by having to be careful to buy a non-factory locked down system or go the build-your-own route. Inconvenienced by not being able to take any retired Windows PC box and turn it into a Linux box. An inconvenience put upon a very small group so that a very large group could have better security. Regrettable but a fair tradeoff given that Linux itself will survive and continue to be available to any who want it or are curious (VM on the locked down Windows box if necessary).
As for free software ideals, that is not Dell's, HP's, etc responsibility. The free software community can put their own resources into open hardware if they want idealogical purity.
2nd tier solutions for an incredibly rare situation, student OS developer. Seems like a reasonable tradeoff for a 1st tier problem, improving security for nearly all computer users.
There is nothing wrong with a buyer preferring to get a factory locked down box if they so choose.
Yes, there is. Can you honestly not see the gradual slide towards loss of freedom?
No. I only see an inconvenience that any retired Windows PC can not be turned into a Linux box. I fully expect that consumer motherboards without a factory lockdown or with a user configurable lockdown will be available for those going the build-your-own route. Motherboard vendors already cater to the BYO/tinkering crowd.
I also expect Red Hat and Ubuntu to see that their distros will be supported by PC vendors.
So no, I don't see the loss of the freedom to run Linux on the horizon. I only see potential compatibility problems on some systems. Is this a negative, yes, but what is the other side of the equation, what is the tradeoff? A more secure Windows PC for the average user who zero interest in ever running Linux. I think that is a positive that outweigh the Linux enthusiast negative.
Why not make it optional? That way, a technical person could get into the menu and disable it.
A non-technical person wouldn't even know this is possible, and leave it as default. Problem solved, without imposing draconian measures on everyone!
I'm fine with that, much as we see with chromebook. I'm just arguing that the end of the world for Linux is not upon us. Its an annoyance, an inconvenience.
It might not be unicode. I once had a bug because I assumed a particular MacOSX/iOS API call was returning UTF8. It was actually returning old-school MacRoman by default. Worked for some locales, caused a crash on others.
What if some brilliant young programmer out there decides he wants to try his/her hand at creating his own OS? They'll never make it past the boot stage unless they puts their efforts into hacking the secure boot out of the system, which might put them off the idea entirely.
BYO open options will still exist. Various motherboard vendors already cater to the BYO crowd. Plus that young student could run Linux in a VM on the locked down Windows box. Or they could hack around on some non-PC device like a Raspberry Pi. Many options exist.
>"No. The "solution" is to give all buyers the option of buying a machine with or without secureboot locked down. There is nothing wrong with a buyer preferring to get a factory locked down box if they so choose."
Yes there is. It doesn't make sense to offer a forced secureboot machine.
So your politics invalidates someone else's genuine want? Some people will want the factory lockdown to enhance security. Some people think the factory lockdown of a chromebook is a good thing (yes, it can be disabled but many chromebookers are unaware or not interested in disabling it).
Highly improbably any OEM is going to offer two of the same model. Either it will be unlocked or locked and not offered both ways (almost guarantee it).
Who cares if its the same model. The fact is the same motherboard can have the firmware configured differently. There will most likely be some option to get an open system. Maybe fewer option than locked down but some options. Again, the current support for the BYO hobbyist market suggests that there is sufficient consumer interest.
And if it is locked- it is "defective by design".
That is a political judgement. A person may want a more secure Windows box and the ability to recycle the machine as a Linux box when it is replaced is a non-issue to them. Hence to them there is no defect.
Plus most consumers don't know and won't know what secure boot is until it is too late. And they won't be told it anyway, and can't find out even if they want to know... it won't be on the box, or in manuals, or on the website or even with customer support. They might decide they need to run a utility or a different OS 6 months later and they are just screwed.
Yeah, 6 months later they will suddenly hear about Linux for the first time and decide to switch. And for those who actually know about Linux and have an occasional need they will probably just run it in a VM.
And then we still have the likelihood that well financed distros like Red Hat and Ubuntu will probably have vendors support their distros. So switchers will probably be just fine even with locked down systems.
But this costs the vendors some money, whereas just ignoring those unix people is free.
That's why I specifically mentioned Red Hat and Ubuntu. They can afford to make it worth the vendor's time. I'm not saying Linux will be the same, just that it will survive.
Also given the existing support for the BYO hobbyist crowd I expect motherboard vendors will have some models that are not locked down at the factory. But for someone recycling an old Windows box, they will probably have to go with a big well financed distro like above.
>"So Red Hat and Ubuntu establish relations with consumer hardware vendors and offer factory signed binaries. Linux is not doomed. Linux kernel developers need to be careful about their motherboards but the vast majority of Linux users would be just fine."
And what about Mageia?
And what about...
As I said, the vast majority, not all, Linux users should be fine. The linpocalypse is not upon us. A few would need to be careful about their motherboards.
The "solution" is not to try and get everyone to play by the stupid secureboot "rules" that MS is trying to force on everyone. The solution is to have ALL machines give the owner of the machine the CHOICE to decide if they want secureboot on or off.
No. The "solution" is to give all buyers the option of buying a machine with or without secureboot locked down. There is nothing wrong with a buyer preferring to get a factory locked down box if they so choose.
Microsoft saying it is "optional" means it absolutely won't be optional when they start putting behind-the-scenes (and probably illegal) pressure on the OEM's to start the lockdown.
OEMs have already demonstrated a willingness to cater to the BYO hobbyist crowd. There is no reason to expect that consumer motherboards without a factory lock down will no longer be available.
It's when LocalTime appears in the future that the fun begins. Snap LocalTime back a few seconds to sync with CurrentbaseTime, feh, probably livable. But make it more than an hour, and do you risk having all of those log entries either being reset to some arbitrary time, or do they have to disappear?
I once worked on the kernel of a system that had to deal with time updates very carefully to avoid screwing up various user land apps whose programmers never considered that a time delta could be negative. Rather than snap the current reported system time to the correct time I would slow down or speed up the progress of time until reported and actual got sufficiently close.
Or Red Hat and Ubuntu establish relations with OEMs and see that factory signed Linux binaries work just fine. Would suck for kernel devs but would probably work just fine for most Linux users. Linux is not doomed.
The end result of this road is mad-expensive hardware for servers at a 500% price premium, and low end locked down hardware for consumers that can't boot "inconvenient" OSs...
So Red Hat and Ubuntu establish relations with consumer hardware vendors and offer factory signed binaries. Linux is not doomed. Linux kernel developers need to be careful about their motherboards but the vast majority of Linux uses would be just fine.
Linux is not doomed. The OEMs will probably be open to other vendors. Red Hat and Ubuntu could probably get their keys recognized by the OEM and offer factory signed binaries. This would probably work just fine for the vast majority of Linux users.
They can't even address simple on-the-spot software solutions
I was once hired because I did not answer an interview question. In the written eval there was a question with 8-10 sorting algorithms listed and I was asked to state the run time complexities. My answer was that I purchased Knuth vol 3: Sorting and Searching so that I would not have to memorize such things.
If I was hiring programmers, I would be very inclined to hire real engineers (of any stripe) than degreed "computer scientists"
If you had a clue you might know that Computer Information System, Computer Science and Computer Engineering programs vary greatly from one university to another. CIS at one university may be in the business school and the program oriented towards internal corporate applications, while at another university CIS may be part of the engineering school and be what many would expect a CE program to be. Similarly some CS programs are what many would expect a CE program to be, while some CE programs are pretty much mediocre CS programs.
The degree title is fairly useless info. You have to look at what the classes are in that program, if its a recent grad. If not a recent grad you have to ask them what they took. My ancient CS degree is pretty much what you see in a good solid CE program today. The modern CS degree offered by my old university is quite different. To be fair they greatly expanded the engineering department since I left and now offer separate CS and CE degrees.
I'm a computer engineer. So on paper I'm both an EE and a CS. Most EE's are doing the same thing. CS majors, nope, you're just CS.
Its not that simple. If you compare the curricula of some CS programs you will find that they are exactly the same as many CE programs, Also you will find some CE programs a bit light on engineering and more like a mediocre CS program. If you are looking only at the title of the degree you are clueless. You need to look at the classes that comprise the program at that university to get a clue.
And if you are old like me look at the curricula of a current CS program, even at your old university. Things may no longer be as you remember. My old CS program from the 80s looks like a CE program today. To be fair my old university greatly expanded the engineering department since I left and it now has separate CS and CE programs.
So... Wouldn't the bit coin exchange be barred from doing business with those Californian companies??
Why? The business and the exchange did not perform any transaction in bitcoins. The business asked the exchange to collect some number of dollars from a person, much like they ask VISA to do so. Only the exchange and the buyer are performing a transaction in bitcoins.
Watches such as the Swiss make are luxury items and are the one item of "jewelry"
a man can wear without controversy in any social circles.
iPhones are already considered fashion accessories and status symbols by some. So having an Apple watch go down the luxury path you mentioned to some degree seems entirely plausible. Now consider all the experienced luxury branding and marketing people Apple brought on board in the last couple of years.
Also, a high-end Swiss
watch is a means of identifying yourself in a particular group, for example a Breitling
Navitimer probably means you are a professional pilot or at least you want people
to think you are. An Apple watch will never ever replace a Breitling in this market.
Note iPads jave replaced paper charts and manuals in some professional cockpits. An Apple Watch could also have special aviation centric functionality via the tethered iPad. The Breitling Navitimer's future may be more fashion accessory and less practical tool.
The Apple watch presents no threat to such Swiss watches, any more than a Tesla
car presents a threat to Porsche.
Well the Porsche station wagons are safe perhaps.:-)
NewEgg has a warehouse in City of Industry. Wonder how this will effect them.
It probably wouldn't even if passed. Many merchants who "accept" bitcoins in fact never touch them. They pay a bitcoin exchange to do so. The merchants tell the exchange the $ amount. The exchange creates a payment address and a BTC amount to give the buyer. When the coins show up at this address and are verified the exchange credits the merchant's account for the exact amount of $ originally stated by the merchant. The merchant does all pricing and accounting in $ and has no risk from BTC price fluctuations.
It seems the only thing necessary would be for the exchange not to be in California.
Hillary should offer up her private emails as soon as the Republicans in Congress release all of their private emails.
Its not that simple. Setting up your own server in preparation for your job as Secretary of State effectively makes that a defacto government server, one that you are privately administering rather than having the appropriate government folks administering. That is the heart of this matter, whether or not that server should be considered a government server and come under the physical possession of government.
Currently, every public servant must decide which email system to use at the time each email is sent. Is it official or private? Do we trust a Secretary of State to make that distinction?
There is an enormous distinction between choosing which email account to use and operating a private server for government use. When choosing the email account to use the user can not manipulate history. When operating a private server that user can manipulate history.
If you are going to refer to all the controversy surrounding ethics with the Clintons, do try and keep in mind that except for fooling around with his secretary, Bill Clinton and Hillary have never been found guilty of any of the charges.
That seems to be a Clinton-esque parsing of the facts.:-) Didn't Bill negotiate a deal with federal prosecutors over his lying to a federal judge under oath and that one of the elements of the deal was surrendering his license to practice law? That's the rich and powerful getting off lightly, not being innocent.
Slashdot Mirror
It was years ago (2010'ish). I was getting iOS to localize currency amounts and dates. Testing was done in English, French and German and things seemed fine -- yeah my bad for using such similar languages. The crash occurred with a Scandinavian user, I don't recall the particular language. The fix was simple, I believe I merely had to specify that I wanted UTF8 rather than the default.
I've changed version control systems since then so I don't have the check-in history handy.
You're completely missing the point.
Having Red Hat or Ubuntu get their keys recognized is not even slightly good enough. Every user who recompiles his kernel gets his own unique key, and needs to have that recognized! The ability for the kernel to be recompiled by the user is the entire fucking point, and is not negotiable. Therefore, secure boot is an existential threat to Free Software!
Actually I understood the point instantly upon reading the summary. However get signed software updates and upgrades from Red Hat and Ubuntu would be just fine for most Linux users.
For others they will be inconvenienced by having to be careful to buy a non-factory locked down system or go the build-your-own route. Inconvenienced by not being able to take any retired Windows PC box and turn it into a Linux box. An inconvenience put upon a very small group so that a very large group could have better security. Regrettable but a fair tradeoff given that Linux itself will survive and continue to be available to any who want it or are curious (VM on the locked down Windows box if necessary).
As for free software ideals, that is not Dell's, HP's, etc responsibility. The free software community can put their own resources into open hardware if they want idealogical purity.
2nd tier solutions for an incredibly rare situation, student OS developer. Seems like a reasonable tradeoff for a 1st tier problem, improving security for nearly all computer users.
Yes, there is. Can you honestly not see the gradual slide towards loss of freedom?
No. I only see an inconvenience that any retired Windows PC can not be turned into a Linux box. I fully expect that consumer motherboards without a factory lockdown or with a user configurable lockdown will be available for those going the build-your-own route. Motherboard vendors already cater to the BYO/tinkering crowd.
I also expect Red Hat and Ubuntu to see that their distros will be supported by PC vendors.
So no, I don't see the loss of the freedom to run Linux on the horizon. I only see potential compatibility problems on some systems. Is this a negative, yes, but what is the other side of the equation, what is the tradeoff? A more secure Windows PC for the average user who zero interest in ever running Linux. I think that is a positive that outweigh the Linux enthusiast negative.
Why not make it optional? That way, a technical person could get into the menu and disable it. A non-technical person wouldn't even know this is possible, and leave it as default. Problem solved, without imposing draconian measures on everyone!
I'm fine with that, much as we see with chromebook. I'm just arguing that the end of the world for Linux is not upon us. Its an annoyance, an inconvenience.
Every user is potentially a kernel dev, ...
In exactly the same way that Bill Maher is potentially a future pope.
...which is the entire point of Free Software!
Its not the mission of major PC vendors to promote FOSS, it is possibly their mission to supply consumers with more secure PCs.
If a person aspires to be a kernel dev they can build their own PC, use a non-PC like a Raspberry Pi, run Linux in a VM, etc.
It might not be unicode. I once had a bug because I assumed a particular MacOSX/iOS API call was returning UTF8. It was actually returning old-school MacRoman by default. Worked for some locales, caused a crash on others.
What if some brilliant young programmer out there decides he wants to try his/her hand at creating his own OS? They'll never make it past the boot stage unless they puts their efforts into hacking the secure boot out of the system, which might put them off the idea entirely.
BYO open options will still exist. Various motherboard vendors already cater to the BYO crowd. Plus that young student could run Linux in a VM on the locked down Windows box. Or they could hack around on some non-PC device like a Raspberry Pi. Many options exist.
>"No. The "solution" is to give all buyers the option of buying a machine with or without secureboot locked down. There is nothing wrong with a buyer preferring to get a factory locked down box if they so choose."
Yes there is. It doesn't make sense to offer a forced secureboot machine.
So your politics invalidates someone else's genuine want? Some people will want the factory lockdown to enhance security. Some people think the factory lockdown of a chromebook is a good thing (yes, it can be disabled but many chromebookers are unaware or not interested in disabling it).
Highly improbably any OEM is going to offer two of the same model. Either it will be unlocked or locked and not offered both ways (almost guarantee it).
Who cares if its the same model. The fact is the same motherboard can have the firmware configured differently. There will most likely be some option to get an open system. Maybe fewer option than locked down but some options. Again, the current support for the BYO hobbyist market suggests that there is sufficient consumer interest.
And if it is locked- it is "defective by design".
That is a political judgement. A person may want a more secure Windows box and the ability to recycle the machine as a Linux box when it is replaced is a non-issue to them. Hence to them there is no defect.
Plus most consumers don't know and won't know what secure boot is until it is too late. And they won't be told it anyway, and can't find out even if they want to know... it won't be on the box, or in manuals, or on the website or even with customer support. They might decide they need to run a utility or a different OS 6 months later and they are just screwed.
Yeah, 6 months later they will suddenly hear about Linux for the first time and decide to switch. And for those who actually know about Linux and have an occasional need they will probably just run it in a VM.
And then we still have the likelihood that well financed distros like Red Hat and Ubuntu will probably have vendors support their distros. So switchers will probably be just fine even with locked down systems.
But this costs the vendors some money, whereas just ignoring those unix people is free.
That's why I specifically mentioned Red Hat and Ubuntu. They can afford to make it worth the vendor's time. I'm not saying Linux will be the same, just that it will survive.
Also given the existing support for the BYO hobbyist crowd I expect motherboard vendors will have some models that are not locked down at the factory. But for someone recycling an old Windows box, they will probably have to go with a big well financed distro like above.
Glad this wasn't around when I was 18. Of course then my insurance was more than the car payment.
Aren't insurance companies offering discounts for installing such devices reporting to them? If not, perhaps soon?
>"So Red Hat and Ubuntu establish relations with consumer hardware vendors and offer factory signed binaries. Linux is not doomed. Linux kernel developers need to be careful about their motherboards but the vast majority of Linux users would be just fine."
And what about Mageia? And what about ...
As I said, the vast majority, not all, Linux users should be fine. The linpocalypse is not upon us. A few would need to be careful about their motherboards.
The "solution" is not to try and get everyone to play by the stupid secureboot "rules" that MS is trying to force on everyone. The solution is to have ALL machines give the owner of the machine the CHOICE to decide if they want secureboot on or off.
No. The "solution" is to give all buyers the option of buying a machine with or without secureboot locked down. There is nothing wrong with a buyer preferring to get a factory locked down box if they so choose.
Microsoft saying it is "optional" means it absolutely won't be optional when they start putting behind-the-scenes (and probably illegal) pressure on the OEM's to start the lockdown.
OEMs have already demonstrated a willingness to cater to the BYO hobbyist crowd. There is no reason to expect that consumer motherboards without a factory lock down will no longer be available.
It's when LocalTime appears in the future that the fun begins. Snap LocalTime back a few seconds to sync with CurrentbaseTime, feh, probably livable. But make it more than an hour, and do you risk having all of those log entries either being reset to some arbitrary time, or do they have to disappear?
I once worked on the kernel of a system that had to deal with time updates very carefully to avoid screwing up various user land apps whose programmers never considered that a time delta could be negative. Rather than snap the current reported system time to the correct time I would slow down or speed up the progress of time until reported and actual got sufficiently close.
Or Red Hat and Ubuntu establish relations with OEMs and see that factory signed Linux binaries work just fine. Would suck for kernel devs but would probably work just fine for most Linux users. Linux is not doomed.
The end result of this road is mad-expensive hardware for servers at a 500% price premium, and low end locked down hardware for consumers that can't boot "inconvenient" OSs ...
So Red Hat and Ubuntu establish relations with consumer hardware vendors and offer factory signed binaries. Linux is not doomed. Linux kernel developers need to be careful about their motherboards but the vast majority of Linux uses would be just fine.
Linux is not doomed. The OEMs will probably be open to other vendors. Red Hat and Ubuntu could probably get their keys recognized by the OEM and offer factory signed binaries. This would probably work just fine for the vast majority of Linux users.
Did you miss the words "commercial zone"?
I've seen skylights / natural lighting in commercial buildings. It may not be common but it is an option. Should it be outlawed?
They can't even address simple on-the-spot software solutions
I was once hired because I did not answer an interview question. In the written eval there was a question with 8-10 sorting algorithms listed and I was asked to state the run time complexities. My answer was that I purchased Knuth vol 3: Sorting and Searching so that I would not have to memorize such things.
If I was hiring programmers, I would be very inclined to hire real engineers (of any stripe) than degreed "computer scientists"
If you had a clue you might know that Computer Information System, Computer Science and Computer Engineering programs vary greatly from one university to another. CIS at one university may be in the business school and the program oriented towards internal corporate applications, while at another university CIS may be part of the engineering school and be what many would expect a CE program to be. Similarly some CS programs are what many would expect a CE program to be, while some CE programs are pretty much mediocre CS programs.
The degree title is fairly useless info. You have to look at what the classes are in that program, if its a recent grad. If not a recent grad you have to ask them what they took. My ancient CS degree is pretty much what you see in a good solid CE program today. The modern CS degree offered by my old university is quite different. To be fair they greatly expanded the engineering department since I left and now offer separate CS and CE degrees.
I'm a computer engineer. So on paper I'm both an EE and a CS. Most EE's are doing the same thing. CS majors, nope, you're just CS.
Its not that simple. If you compare the curricula of some CS programs you will find that they are exactly the same as many CE programs, Also you will find some CE programs a bit light on engineering and more like a mediocre CS program. If you are looking only at the title of the degree you are clueless. You need to look at the classes that comprise the program at that university to get a clue.
And if you are old like me look at the curricula of a current CS program, even at your old university. Things may no longer be as you remember. My old CS program from the 80s looks like a CE program today. To be fair my old university greatly expanded the engineering department since I left and it now has separate CS and CE programs.
So... Wouldn't the bit coin exchange be barred from doing business with those Californian companies??
Why? The business and the exchange did not perform any transaction in bitcoins. The business asked the exchange to collect some number of dollars from a person, much like they ask VISA to do so. Only the exchange and the buyer are performing a transaction in bitcoins.
It's seriously not waterproof? So if it rains you have to take it off and put it in your pocket?
I believe it has some international rating that equates to 3 feet for 30 minutes. Not 100% sure though.
Watches such as the Swiss make are luxury items and are the one item of "jewelry" a man can wear without controversy in any social circles.
iPhones are already considered fashion accessories and status symbols by some. So having an Apple watch go down the luxury path you mentioned to some degree seems entirely plausible. Now consider all the experienced luxury branding and marketing people Apple brought on board in the last couple of years.
Also, a high-end Swiss watch is a means of identifying yourself in a particular group, for example a Breitling Navitimer probably means you are a professional pilot or at least you want people to think you are. An Apple watch will never ever replace a Breitling in this market.
Note iPads jave replaced paper charts and manuals in some professional cockpits. An Apple Watch could also have special aviation centric functionality via the tethered iPad. The Breitling Navitimer's future may be more fashion accessory and less practical tool.
The Apple watch presents no threat to such Swiss watches, any more than a Tesla car presents a threat to Porsche.
Well the Porsche station wagons are safe perhaps. :-)
NewEgg has a warehouse in City of Industry. Wonder how this will effect them.
It probably wouldn't even if passed. Many merchants who "accept" bitcoins in fact never touch them. They pay a bitcoin exchange to do so. The merchants tell the exchange the $ amount. The exchange creates a payment address and a BTC amount to give the buyer. When the coins show up at this address and are verified the exchange credits the merchant's account for the exact amount of $ originally stated by the merchant. The merchant does all pricing and accounting in $ and has no risk from BTC price fluctuations.
It seems the only thing necessary would be for the exchange not to be in California.
Hillary should offer up her private emails as soon as the Republicans in Congress release all of their private emails.
Its not that simple. Setting up your own server in preparation for your job as Secretary of State effectively makes that a defacto government server, one that you are privately administering rather than having the appropriate government folks administering. That is the heart of this matter, whether or not that server should be considered a government server and come under the physical possession of government.
Currently, every public servant must decide which email system to use at the time each email is sent. Is it official or private? Do we trust a Secretary of State to make that distinction?
There is an enormous distinction between choosing which email account to use and operating a private server for government use. When choosing the email account to use the user can not manipulate history. When operating a private server that user can manipulate history.
If you are going to refer to all the controversy surrounding ethics with the Clintons, do try and keep in mind that except for fooling around with his secretary, Bill Clinton and Hillary have never been found guilty of any of the charges.
That seems to be a Clinton-esque parsing of the facts. :-) Didn't Bill negotiate a deal with federal prosecutors over his lying to a federal judge under oath and that one of the elements of the deal was surrendering his license to practice law? That's the rich and powerful getting off lightly, not being innocent.