> Well, are you sure "UEFI disable button" will turn off ALL of UEFI functions?
Fow windows 8 certed hardware, aka most.
http://download.microsoft.com/download/A/D/F/ADF5BEDE-C0FB-4CC0-A3E1-B38093F50BA1/windows8-hardware-cert-requirements-system.pdf
Which states.
MANDATORY. The platform shall s
Rudolf Leitgeb wrote:
> For 15+ years I read these regular Cassandra calls that this and that
> "innovation" will kill free operating systems on commodity hardware,
> remember Adaptec SCSI controllers, 3D video cards, I2O, trusted
> computing and whatever the "feature of the day" is called.
It v
> Well, are you sure "UEFI disable button" will turn off ALL of UEFI
> functions?
> With that virtualization, both hardware bugs and attacks against
> hypervisors are real world cases. So don't be naive.
>
> Trust me, I'll try hard to avoid virtualization and Fedora@UEFI on my
> firewalls, no ma
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:03 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> Many of us can comfortably disable UEFI, but it's going to be
> problematic for our less skilled colleagues.
Well, are you sure "UEFI disable button" will turn off ALL of UEFI functions?
>> Also, UEFI will possibly take down a dozens of
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Alexey Suslikov
wrote:
> Remember SOPA/ACTA? If somebody is planning to have a regulation,
> this somebody should take care about tools which guarantee direct, not
> circumstantial, evidence of somebody else broke this regulation.
>
> UEFI implements network stack s
Remember SOPA/ACTA? If somebody is planning to have a regulation,
this somebody should take care about tools which guarantee direct, not
circumstantial, evidence of somebody else broke this regulation.
UEFI implements network stack so it can be a long-standing strategy.
UEFI is about remote monit
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Bob Beck wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Tomas Bodzar
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> World is trying much worse stuff than UEFI
>>
>> http://extratorrent.com/article/2263/uk+prime+minister+calls+for+online+porn+ban.html
>>
>>
>
> What? they're going to ban porn? T
On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 06:54:31PM +0100, llemike...@aol.com wrote:
> I bought Betamax (because it was the best)... until...
> I bought SAAB (because it was the best)... until...
> I bought Amiga (because it was the best)... until...
>
> I don't want to be saying...
>
> I bou.. erm.. got... OpenB
On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 06:54:31PM +0100, llemike...@aol.com wrote:
> Tomas (and David and E.V.R. Else-Body)
>
> Yes - I'd read the thread(s) (Gentoo too..) - but the
> ultimate conclusion of much of the discussion is
> "buy different hardware".
>
> I bought Betamax (because it was the best)... u
Tomas (and David and E.V.R. Else-Body)
Yes - I'd read the thread(s) (Gentoo too..) - but the
ultimate conclusion of much of the discussion is
"buy different hardware".
I bought Betamax (because it was the best)... until...
I bought SAAB (because it was the best)... until...
I bought Amiga (becau
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Tomas Bodzar wrote:
>
> World is trying much worse stuff than UEFI
>
> http://extratorrent.com/article/2263/uk+prime+minister+calls+for+online+porn+ban.html
>
>
>
What? they're going to ban porn? That's it, I'm quitting the internets.
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 4:46 PM, llemike...@aol.com wrote:
> Dear ,
>
> I have been considering the implications for BSD and
> Linux and any non-MS O/S of the implementation of UEFI
> Secure Boot (SB).
>
> As I understand it, ARM devices wishing to receive Win8 cert
> are required to enable SB by d
With all the investment in non MS, mission critical / non portable apps,
in the proprietry world alone, do you really think Microsoft can ever take
over all of i386? Surely they can only try, and keep on trying, but it is
an unwinnable arms race, and someone is going to be willing to pay for a bac
T,
A!! Oh Yes
I see what you are doing...
Ah-hahaha, Yes - I agree
Talk is so much puff...
We need to DO...
Time to work on CoreBoot or our own (who else will
do it?) aftermarket BIOS solutions...
Mike's plan:
1) Get EPROM programmer with PLCC adaptor
2) Get surface mount torch
3)
Be realistic. Talking about it on misc won't change anything.
>Dear ,
>
>I have been considering the implications for BSD and
>Linux and any non-MS O/S of the implementation of UEFI
>Secure Boot (SB).
>
>As I understand it, ARM devices wishing to receive Win8 cert
>are required to enable SB by de
Dear ,
I have been considering the implications for BSD and
Linux and any non-MS O/S of the implementation of UEFI
Secure Boot (SB).
As I understand it, ARM devices wishing to receive Win8 cert
are required to enable SB by default and prevent the disabling
of SB.
Meanwhile, x86 devices are supp
16 matches
Mail list logo
