On 08/06/12 14:41, Dave Morley wrote:
But only devices Running Windows, those running android linux etc by
default would have the switch disabled
they might do, or might have a Googley Android key. Come to that, there
could be ARM devices with a Canonical key that can only ever run signed
Ubunt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/06/12 14:21, Alan Bell wrote:
> On 02/06/12 14:06, Nigel Verity wrote:
>> Hi All
>>
>> If anybody can get a key from Verisign for $99 that makes a
>> mockery of having secure boot in the first place.
> no, that isn't how it works at all. It is p
On 02/06/12 14:06, Nigel Verity wrote:
Hi All
If anybody can get a key from Verisign for $99 that makes a mockery of
having secure boot in the first place.
no, that isn't how it works at all. It is possible for some people to
get a binary signed by Microsoft by paying $99 which goes to verisig
On 05/06/12 08:17, scoundrel50a wrote:
On 03/06/2012 23:00, Bruno Girin wrote:
On 03/06/12 19:03, Andres Muniz wrote:
thanks for the info guys! Got more than I need! I was a bit concernd
that some servers were using arm as well. But clearly it will not be
a problem.
Well, until proved
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/06/12 08:17, scoundrel50a wrote:
> So what is the future of Ubuntu now that Microsoft are doing
> this.it doesnt look too good..
>
I'm sure we have the best minds on it :)
Cheers,
- --
Alan Pope
Engineering Manager
Canonical - Produc
On 03/06/2012 23:00, Bruno Girin wrote:
On 03/06/12 19:03, Andres Muniz wrote:
thanks for the info guys! Got more than I need! I was a bit concernd
that some servers were using arm as well. But clearly it will not be
a problem.
Well, until proved otherwise :-)
Bruno
So what is the
On 03/06/12 19:03, Andres Muniz wrote:
>
>
> thanks for the info guys! Got more than I need! I was a bit concernd
> that some servers were using arm as well. But clearly it will not be a
> problem.
>
Well, until proved otherwise :-)
Bruno
--
ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/m
- Mensaje original -
> On 02/06/12 15:56, Alan Bell wrote:
> > > Could linux foundation do the same for the servers? beause they can
> > > be "cracked" in a similar way?
> > >
> >
> > servers generally won't get the secure boot thing. Odd really because
> > it kind of makes more sense to
On Sun, 2012-06-03 at 12:39 +0100, Bruno Girin wrote:
> On 02/06/12 15:56, Alan Bell wrote:
> any change in installation procedure means:
> * Re-train the whole of IT,
> * Change all training and documentation material,
> * Update the process of how business units get servers
>
On 02/06/12 15:56, Alan Bell wrote:
>> Could linux foundation do the same for the servers? beause they can
>> be "cracked" in a similar way?
>>
>
> servers generally won't get the secure boot thing. Odd really because
> it kind of makes more sense to me in that context.
>
Probably because the bigg
On 02/06/12 14:26, Andres Muniz wrote:
I'm getting a bit confused now.
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html
Everybody seems Does the fedora payment of $99 to verisign mean that
the computer that could or could not have windows preinstalled will
alow to install fedora and windows but no
- Mensaje original -
> On 01/06/12 13:58, Matt Wheeler wrote:
> > On 1 June 2012 08:02, alan c wrote:
> > > Time has passed.
> > > The problem has now matured, and Fedora have accepted defeat and
> > > decided to pay to be allowed to use Microsoft restricted hardware.
> > >
> > > Impleme
Hi All
If anybody can get a key from Verisign for $99 that makes a mockery of having
secure boot in the first place. We can take it as read that there are long term
plans by Microsoft to tighten up the secure boot spec in the future in their
favour.
To my mind, this first pass is just to establ
On 01/06/12 13:58, Matt Wheeler wrote:
On 1 June 2012 08:02, alan c wrote:
Time has passed.
The problem has now matured, and Fedora have accepted defeat and decided to
pay to be allowed to use Microsoft restricted hardware.
Implementing UEFI Secure Boot in Fedora Linux
http://j.mp/KZykUS
On 1 June 2012 08:02, alan c wrote:
> Time has passed.
> The problem has now matured, and Fedora have accepted defeat and decided to
> pay to be allowed to use Microsoft restricted hardware.
>
> Implementing UEFI Secure Boot in Fedora Linux
> http://j.mp/KZykUS
According to an update to that arti
If it's to do the job it's intended to do, it has to be hard to turn
> off. If it's easy to turn off, it might as well not be there.
Couldn't you just have some form of password protection where, i don't
know, some sort of serial number is stuck the bottom of your machine
and you need to enter thi
James Morrissey wrote:
> As such, as i understand it, the problem is not that MS are advocating
> for secure boot. Instead its that while they do so they are not
> insisting that the secure boot option be something that can be
> overridden, or switched off, if the user wishes to install a piece o
Just to be clear here, isn't there some relevance to the secure boot.
I mean even in Linux systems you wouldn't want malware to install
itself onto the software which runs the firmware. Wouldn't such
malware a danger to all systems, be they Windows or Linux?
As such, as i understand it, the proble
On 31 October 2011 09:58, Robert Flatters wrote:
> This will be a growing problem, if there is no step processes in place to
> get UEFI turned off you HP Guy will have big problems in the coming months.
> I fear Microsoft is trying to lockout Linux from installing on new machine.
UEFI isn't somet
On 31/10/11 09:58, Robert Flatters wrote:
This will be a growing problem, if there is no step processes in place
to get UEFI turned off
no, there won't be a process to turn off UEFI, that makes no sense. UEFI
is not a turnoffable thing. The Secure Boot feature that does not yet
exist in the wi
On 30/10/11 16:45, Andy Braben wrote:
I would also think it unlikely to be UEFI that is causing the problem.
it is UEFI causing the problem, or more strictly speaking it is Ubuntu's
imperfect support for UEFI on the 32bit desktop iso that is causing the
problem. It isn't secure boot, which is
On 30 October 2011 18:59, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 04:22:05PM +, Michael Holmes wrote:
>> On 30 October 2011 15:19, alan c wrote:
>> > ... “My friend recently got an HP s5-1110 with Win 7 installed.
>> > UEFI has prevented the installation of GRUB on this machine.
>>
On 30 October 2011 18:59, Colin Watson wrote:
> Actually it does (on 64-bit images), but of course that doesn't
> guarantee that it will work as it's generally less well-tested at the
> moment.
>
I have installed on my EFI enabled macbook pro from these images.
> I agree with Alan that this is u
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 04:22:05PM +, Michael Holmes wrote:
> On 30 October 2011 15:19, alan c wrote:
> > ... “My friend recently got an HP s5-1110 with Win 7 installed.
> > UEFI has prevented the installation of GRUB on this machine.
>
> This is going to happen even if you don't have Sec
I would also think it unlikely to be UEFI that is causing the problem.
I came across an occurrence some years ago, where I could not get an Ubuntu
CD to boot up despite setting the BIOS. There turned out to be some weird
configuration of key presses necessary when booting up at the BIOS stage.
Mo
On 30 October 2011 15:19, alan c wrote:
> ... “My friend recently got an HP s5-1110 with Win 7 installed.
> UEFI has prevented the installation of GRUB on this machine.
This is going to happen even if you don't have Secure Boot. UEFI and
BIOS *do not* have compatible boot systems. You need a
26 matches
Mail list logo
