On 06/13/2012 03:27 PM, Matej Kosik wrote:
Hello,
On Fedora 16, CPU scaling works fine for me.
From this I assume you're now using F17 as you seem to suggest it
doesn't work fine anymore, but I believe everything holds for F16 as well.
On Debian, I was able to determine minimal/maximal fre
On 06/14/2012 09:16 PM, Kevin Martin wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't "ss -p" essentially the same as the older "netstat
-anp"?
net-tools (including netcat) are somewhat deprecated in favor of
iproute2 programs (which include ss as a netcat replacement) in some
circles.
--
t
--
us
Maybe try ntfs-3g? I'm not really up-to-date on what's the default NTFS
driver now, but I know this used to be some kind of mess.
# mount -t ntfs-3g
Options[0] may be different.
[0] http://www.tuxera.com/community/ntfs-3g-manual/
--
t
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To u
On 06/05/2012 01:29 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 06:47:24 -0400
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Don't worry about. Microsoft will make sure that the OEM knows exactly how
to implement the ability to install keys for other operating systems.
They seem quite averse to that actually.
UEFI its
On 06/05/2012 12:46 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Thibault Nélis writes:
Supposing your OEM isn't abusing his powers and respects Microsoft's
requirements if it's an x86 platform, you should be able to add your
own key in the firmware, which will be used to verify the boot loader
On 06/05/2012 08:02 AM, JD wrote:
So, will there be a document that will accompany the ISO,
advising the user what key to insert into the firmware so
that the firmware will be able to authenticate the boot loader?
I don't know if this has been discussed somewhere at Fedora, but I would
assume
On 06/05/2012 05:20 AM, JD wrote:
Well, I was thinking of distros.
Since I will not be the creator of the Linux ISO
which I will be downloading and burning onto a DVD,
how can I create those keys and insert them into the
DVD without going through the whole rigmarole
of building the OS and the who
On 06/05/2012 04:47 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 18:06:24 -0700
JD wrote:
On 06/04/2012 05:03 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
This has been explained in this thread before.
It is logically impossible to have a so-called "secure-boot" for
both a free OS and a non-free OS on the same
On 06/05/2012 05:10 AM, JD wrote:
I wonder if China will go along with the MS plans!
Much of our HW is made in China. What's to prevent
China from inserting back door code in the HW? I
mean that would totally make secure boot a laughable
thing.
Well this scheme where the manufacturer inserts a
Okay, so just to be clear, you mean that you have *not* copied files
from a f15 filesystem to a new f17 system, but actually have copied
files (with a file manager, GNOME Nautilus) from an external system to a
unique filesystem that is used by both f15 and f17 that you dual-boot on
the same dis
On 06/04/2012 12:22 PM, j.witvl...@mindef.nl wrote:
-Original Message-
From: users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[mailto:users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of JD
So, if all the linux distros put their "heads" together and create a single
Linux signature authority, which w
On 06/02/2012 12:37 PM, François Patte wrote:
Bonjour,
Bonjour!
I installed ucview to record images from a webcam. It stops recording
after 2,2 GB.
At 2,147,483,647 exactly? That looks like a classic 32-bit signed
integer overflow.
Is that the normal behaviour?
If that's what it
On 06/02/2012 07:11 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
Changing it in the UEFI interface before boot sounds much more
reasonable,
A post in the other thread suggests that I might be wrong BTW, or at
least that it would depend on the vendor.
but please don't call me "Shirley."
Roger, roger.
--
t
--
users
I'd say Flash doesn't have a great reputation (I assume plugin-container
is running Flash here) and that's one the reasons why. I also have a
constant load even when the video is paused, in the order of 0.7-1.3%.
About PulseAudio though.. it's definitely not normal (at least I don't
see that
Also, maybe this would suffice to identify them, in case you can't
install the package:
$ ls -l /dev/disk/by-{id,label}
--
t
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: htt
Coreboot / TianoCore is indeed the way to go.
Presentation from earlier this year (just Coreboot), for the interested:
http://video.fosdem.org/2012/maintracks/janson/Coreboot.webm
--
t
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https
Did you copy the data at the filesystem level or at the volume level?
(In other words, did you copy the files themselves or the whole
volume/partition block by block?)
In the former case, I wouldn't worry too much, it might just be the
result of the natural defragmentation of your files. To r
On 06/02/2012 07:24 PM, JD wrote:
On 06/02/2012 10:08 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
I sure do! The only PC's I've ever owned that were pre-built were
laptops. I'm not a hardware geek, but one of my friends is, and when
it's time to upgrade, we get together, buy parts and he puts them
together. I pay him w
On 06/02/2012 10:19 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
But I thought that this was the plan of action, isn't it? Sign a shim
that boots Fedora. Presto, secured boot, with Microsoft's blessing.
So, did you just change your mind, and realize that:
1) It makes no sense, and
2) Microsoft is not going to s
On 06/02/2012 05:50 PM, Steve Dowe wrote:
Does anyone know if the signed bootloader must be executed first before
Secure Book can be disabled?
Or would one just enter a BIOS-like config screen before any disc
activity and disable it?
Surely you can access the UEFI firmware interface before the
On 06/02/2012 04:34 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Well the math doesn't compute here, it's cryptographically impossible.
I mean you could sign a shim that won't verify the integrity of the boot
There you go.
Look I can't really go on on that. You seem to imply that this is a bad
thing. I simp
On 06/02/2012 04:28 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Yes, all five of them.
Point taken.
[0] Yes, I found it, it was there all along, I guess I didn't look
hard enough (or didn't listen properly):
http://download.microsoft.com/download/A/D/F/ADF5BEDE-C0FB-4CC0-A3E1-B38093F50BA1/windows8-hardware-ce
On 06/02/2012 01:26 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
[snip]
I repeat: this is NOT going to happen. If you allow an open operating
system to boot, as a trusted boot, then "trusted boot" ceases all
meaning whatsoever for a non-free OS that requires a signed chain from
the hardware. And I won't even start
On 06/02/2012 12:47 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Who exactly is outraged right now? A bunch of geeks on a mailing list?
So what? Who cares?
Again, people have won cases to get their money back over the license of
preinstalled Windows copies because they use alternative OSes. Secure
boot is way
On 06/02/2012 12:20 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
They won't have a choice. Microsoft will require that all hardware an
OEM makes must be signed by their key, or none at all. Hardware OEMs
will have to choose whether their entire product line will only support
a Microsoft OS, or all other OSes. No c
On 06/01/2012 04:45 PM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
Or is the ext4 code able to mount ext3 now (I didn't think so)?
I'm pretty sure it is fully backward compatible yes, even with ext2 from
what I read. It simply doesn't use all the new and fancy features
obviously.
--
t
--
users mailing list
user
On 06/01/2012 02:33 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Because that makes the entire concept of a trusted boot, into a trusted
operating system, moot.
They are not that dumb.
This will enable a piece of PC hardware to boot an operating system,
then run virus code that boots Windows' bootloader, infecti
On 06/01/2012 02:40 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
they can't possibly review all the software that could follow the boot
loader down the chain,
They won't have to. Once they have a signing key that boots their
current Windows OS, they have no further need for a certification
process. What value ad
On 06/01/2012 02:27 PM, William Brown wrote:
The problem with this scheme is that a "trusted" os would in theory,
with the users permission be able to some how update the trusted key
repository on the firmware. Which means the security of your machine is
as good as the security of your firmware /
On 06/01/2012 01:05 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Just last week, installing the kernel 3.3.7 update made the ACPI
backlight intensity adjustment keys on my Thinkpad work, for the first
time.
Unti now, they never worked. I never bothered to complain. I figure
that, sooner or later, the kernel will
On 06/01/2012 01:00 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
If, all of a sudden, another bootloader gets pushed into Fedora, only a
year or so after all the headache and pain of migrating from grub 1 to
grub 2, then this will validate our collective take on the subject.
With the ability to manage your keys,
On 06/01/2012 01:18 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Who gets to make a call what is "trusted", and what even "trusted" means.
Can I recompile my own kernel, sprinkle some magic dust over it, and
make "trusted", without involving any other party?
Yes, you can sign it yourself, with your own key.
A
On 06/01/2012 01:11 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
You are assuming that Microsoft will sign a bootloader with such
functionality.
I would not take that bet.
The plan is to make them sign a shim boot loader, which essentially
delegates the trust down to Fedora entirely, because they have no
cont
On 06/01/2012 09:46 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
Out of support releases are also an interesting problem. If a hole is
found they need to revoke the key. If they do that the users machine is
crippled. It's potentially a criminal matter in many EU states as well so
whoever issues the revocation could end u
On 06/01/2012 09:15 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
Now a signed bootloader has its uses, however in a properly designed
system you would allow the user to import their own keys.
If it goes banana, I'm pretty confident this will be required by law in
most sane countries. There are good organizations of a
NOTE/PS Yes, I was brave and did read myself back (now I feel pain for
you). Doing that, I realized we badly need a very visible FAQ
somewhere. Does it exist already? Can we point people to it? Should
we write it? Anyway, here goes:
On 06/01/2012 05:34 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
positiv
On 05/31/2012 05:09 PM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
I tend to encourage people to pick ext4 over ext3 on modern hardware
and software.
Aside from some clear performance wins for not-that-uncommon workloads
(deleting lots of large files, storing large images etc) there's the
fact that most of the atten
On 05/31/2012 02:38 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
It's of course all a bit of a joke because it's then a simple matter of
using virtualisation to fake the "secure" environment and running the
"secure" OS in that 8)
The distributions can review the hypervisor code (then sign it as a
symbol of trust) and
On 05/31/2012 09:41 AM, Junayeed Ahnaf Nirjhor wrote:
Just to see the speed and which app is taking the BW
If you want to see statistics per-process, you can use `nethogs' for
example.
--
t
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
http
On 05/29/2012 06:21 PM, JD wrote:
I am not running anything that I KNOW to require uuidd.
I simply wanted to make sure that if there are other daemons
or apps that need it, will be able to use it.
You could try
$ rpm -q --whatrequires uuidd
--
t
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedora
40 matches
Mail list logo
