|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 26 2013 @ 02:22 PM EST |
> It started innocently enough.
Now I'm no great standard bearer for FOSS, but I could see from day one
there was nothing innocent about it. I couldn't understand how RH
thought they could get away with it.
Now MS has broken the hardware industry. Or p'raps the box makers
have broken it themselves in their insatiable lust for whatever it is
that MS is giving them. It could be a long painful process to drag
them back from the brink so they can see who their customers are
and sell them hardware that works for what the customer wants.
Secure boot is surely part of that so long as there is a way for
customers to install their own keys. Not everybody trusts MS
least of all Linus.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 26 2013 @ 03:45 PM EST |
I still cannot see why M$ should be allowed to call the the
shots on PC hardware in any way shape or form.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 26 2013 @ 04:19 PM EST |
Linus' reaction was not to the source of the keys, but to Red Hat's sedulous
insistence on adding blobs to the *generic Linux kernel* for the specific
purpose of supporting Red Hat-only functionality. It doesn't matter where they
keys came from; it was still a bad idea that deserved to be shot down. Shame on
Red Hat for their laziness and hubris.
(And chalk up yet another wrong-but-exciting headline to the spinmeisters at
zdnet. I really wish that we would stop uncritically repeating such blatant
mischaracterizations.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 26 2013 @ 08:32 PM EST |
Here's an interesting question.
Let's say that key was dropped into
the Kernel Prime. And Microsoft signed it.
Can Microsoft at some later
date invalidate the key - for example, by "accidently" forgetting to update the
certificate - thereby "inadvertently" disabling every Linux computer that was
silly enough to install that particular kernel?
I don't know exactly what
the key is supposed to do or whether it's supposed to check "home" for validity
or whatever which is why I'm a little curious about the particular potential
outlined.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 28 2013 @ 03:10 PM EST |
The key work is dynamic. Dynamic code has both been a good idea and a very bad
idea. You really don't want dynamic changes to code for stability and other
reasons. You do if you are lazy or want to slip something past the QA/QC group.
If I have a dynamically updatable set of code I don't have to go through a
formal change process. I can just change it on the fly. Somehow I feel that
the objection is based on the stability of the kernal more than any of the other
reasons presented. (but that's just my two cents)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
