On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Polytropon wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:21:28 + (UTC), jb wrote:
> > I hope FreeBSD (and other OSs) luminaries, devs and users will find a
> way not
> > to harm themselves.
>
> A massive problem I (personally) have is that with Restricted Boot
> (this is what
Mike Jeays rogers.com> writes:
>
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 02:31:40 +0200
> Polytropon edvax.de> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:21:28 + (UTC), jb wrote:
> > > I hope FreeBSD (and other OSs) luminaries, devs and users will find
> > > a way not to harm themselves.
> >
> > A massive problem I
On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 02:31:40 +0200
Polytropon wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:21:28 + (UTC), jb wrote:
> > I hope FreeBSD (and other OSs) luminaries, devs and users will find a way
> > not
> > to harm themselves.
>
> A massive problem I (personally) have is that with Restricted Boot
> (this
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 16:21:28 + (UTC), jb wrote:
> I hope FreeBSD (and other OSs) luminaries, devs and users will find a way not
> to harm themselves.
A massive problem I (personally) have is that with Restricted Boot
(this is what "Secure Boot" basically is) you are no longer able
to _ignore_
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/8/2013 6:28 PM, Teske, Devin wrote:
Not entirely correct. Microsoft licensing requires UEFI Secure boot
for PCs sold with preinstalled Win8 and the "Windows 8" logo.
Win8 itself boots and runs fine on legacy hardware without
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/8/2013 6:28 PM, Teske, Devin wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Sergio de Almeida Lenzi wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> So the question:
>> Why or when will I need an secure UEFI boot???
>>
>
> Fro
On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 19:24:38 -0300
Sergio de Almeida Lenzi wrote:
> I could not find only a one user that wants to use FreeBSD and/or
> LInux AND windows
Some people don't want to delete a preinstalled copy of Windows so they
can buy another and install it in a virtual server.
There are also fa
On Jul 8, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Sergio de Almeida Lenzi wrote:
[snip]
>
> So the question:
> Why or when will I need an secure UEFI boot???
>
>From what I've read of UEFI Secure boot, I've parceled out into these nuggets:
(correct any nuggets I got wrong)
1. UEFI Sec
Hello,
You can call me naive, but until today,
I could not find only a one user that wants to use FreeBSD and/or LInux
AND windows
in any machine I mount/sold, and I have mount it by the dozen,
servers running FreeBSD, notebooks running a custom version of Arch
Linux...
In the freeBSD servers,
Hi,
according to distrowatch.com:
"FreeBSD developer Marshall Mickusick told IT Wire that the FreeBSD team would
probably follow in the footsteps of cutting-edge Linux distributions.
"Indeed we will likely take the Linux shim loader, put our own key in it, and
then ask Microsoft to sign it. Since
Any server manufacturer who chooses to only support MS products is
going to find they don't get much business from the academic market.
such behaviour is even more stupid today as globally PC market is
shrinking.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mai
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:23 AM, C. P. Ghost wrote:
> Only if they fully follow the spec. This is rather unlikely.
>
> Even today, there are still many broken DMI/SMBIOS
> tables out there that contain barely enough stuff for
> Windows to boot successfully. What makes you think
> UEFI BIOS makers
Hi Cordula,
Good points you made.
The sooner it's blocked the easier to block.
*BSD, + *Linux, Solaris etc people could start contacting their local
anti monopoly / anti free trade, government departments to give them time
to look into the issues.
If eg EU commision found it a monopolist con
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 12:17 AM, grarpamp wrote:
> I did say "effectively". If people would actually read that chapter
> in the spec (minimally 27.5) they would find that they can:
> - Load a new PK without asking if in default SetupMode
> - If not in SetupMode, chainload a new PK provided it is
>
grarpamp writes:
> Plenty of millionaires
> out there now who are in tune with opensource who could startup,
> buy the same ARM/ATOM/etc chips, the same support chips, load
> Android and sell it to the masses.
Would you please post a list of these millionaire FLOSS entrepreneurs?
Thank you.
__
>> Isn't there a lot of needless handwaving going on when the spec is
>> pretty clear that installing your own complete PKI tree will all
>> boil down to what is effectively a jumper on the motherboard?
> Hoping a jumper Might be under an easily unscrewable panel seems unlikely.
I did say "effect
grarpamp wrote:
> Isn't there a lot of needless handwaving going on when the spec is
> pretty clear that installing your own complete PKI tree will all
> boil down to what is effectively a jumper on the motherboard?
The hope for a jumper is insufficient.
Cracking open laptops is no fun. It's not
even install a
fresh copy of Windows.
> > Users could fully utilize the UEFI Secure Boot hardware by say:
> >
> > - Using openssl to generate their keys
> > - Jumper the board, burn it into the BIOS in UEFI SB SetupMode
> > - Have all the MBR, slice, partition, insta
installing your own complete PKI tree will all
> boil down to what is effectively a jumper on the motherboard?
>
>
> First, some sanity...
>
> Users could fully utilize the UEFI Secure Boot hardware by say:
>
> - Using openssl to generate their keys
> - Jumper the board,
Isn't there a lot of needless handwaving going on when the spec is
pretty clear that installing your own complete PKI tree will all
boil down to what is effectively a jumper on the motherboard?
First, some sanity...
Users could fully utilize the UEFI Secure Boot hardware by say:
-
20 matches
Mail list logo
