|
|
|
| Authored by: jbb on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 07:34 PM EST |
| link (warning: NSFGL)
The target of this recent rant,
Matthew Garrett,
has issued a
reasoned
reply (that is safe for GL):
A possible outcome is that the
distributions who care about signed modules will all just carry this patchset
anyway, and the ones who don't won't. That's probably going to be interpreted by
many as giving too much responsibility to Microsoft, but it's worth emphasising
that these patches change nothing in that respect - if your firmware trusts
Microsoft, you already trust Microsoft. If your firmware doesn't trust
Microsoft, these patches will not cause your kernel to trust Microsoft. If
you've set up your own chain of trust instead, anything signed by Microsoft will
be rejected.
IMO, secure boot and signed modules can provide
Linux with a substantial security boost. As long as the user/owner controls
what keys are in their firmware then it makes sense to me for the kernel to
trust those keys.
---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are
more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Here he is now - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 09:36 PM EST
- Linus Torvalds Suggests How To Handle UEFI Secure Boot Crisis - Authored by: cassini2006 on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 10:35 PM EST
- Linus Torvalds Suggests How To Handle UEFI Secure Boot Crisis - Authored by: jbb on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 11:28 PM EST
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 03:44 PM EST
- No - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 04:25 PM EST
- Here is a link that might help..... - Authored by: dacii on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 06:21 PM EST
- No - Authored by: AntiFUD on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 06:38 PM EST
- No - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 09:26 PM EST
- No - Authored by: Wol on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 08:01 PM EST
- No - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 09:25 PM EST
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 09:46 PM EST
- Yes - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 01:39 AM EST
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 02:53 AM EST
- LVM - Authored by: artp on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 11:18 PM EST
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 02:01 PM EST
- USB disks, Knoppix and DD - Authored by: cricketjeff on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 04:53 PM EST
- imho, dont use lvm on laptops - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 04 2013 @ 07:58 AM EST
- I agree with you - Authored by: jbb on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 07:54 AM EST
- I agree with you - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 03:30 PM EST
- I agree with you - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 11:16 PM EST
- It has to be user-specific keys. - Authored by: cassini2006 on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 04:04 PM EST
- "This is all a huge waste of time." - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 07:20 AM EST
- Linus Torvalds Suggests How To Handle UEFI Secure Boot Crisis - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 01:58 PM EST
- Linus Torvalds Suggests How To Handle UEFI Secure Boot Crisis - Authored by: jjs on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 12:42 AM EST
- Linus Torvalds Suggests How To Handle UEFI Secure Boot Crisis - Authored by: luvr on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 12:16 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 10:09 PM EST |
The Canadian government today
introduced a bill
aimed at ensuring the Canada complies with the
widely discredited
Anti-Counterfeiting
Trade Agreement. Despite the
European Union's total
rejection of
ACTA along with
assurances that ACTA provisions would not resurface in the
Canada
- EU Trade Agreement, the new bill is designed to ensure that
Canada is positioned to ratify ACTA by addressing border
measures
provisions. The core elements of the bill
include the increased
criminalization of copyright and trademark
law as well as the introduction of
new powers for Canadian border guards
to detain shipments
and work
actively with rights holders to seize and destroy goods
without court
oversight or involvement.
Michael Geist[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 02 2013 @ 04:54 PM EST |
Now I am begin to wonder if someone is trying to ruin java.
And who would do that and why ?
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-57572168-263/more-java-based-malware-plague
s-the-cross-platform-runtime/[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: symbolset on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 12:53 AM EST |
The purpose of the MPEG patent pool and MPEG LA is to prevent newcomers from
implementing video. It is a prevention of progress tool that claims "you cannot
do video without violating our patents." It has served to protect Microsoft's
dominion, to preserve Sony's influence, even to kill webcam and simple camera
OEMs. It is a bad thing, an example of how patents impede progress.
Google
by buying ON2 and open-sourcing its non-patent-encumbered video VP8
encoder/decoders is trying to reverse this harm. There is only so much Google
can do alone. If we won't demand video cams that encode this free format then
it is not their fault we remain in the clutches of MPEG LA. They gave us the
option to quit it. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 12:38 PM EST |
<a
href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/application-development/oracle-ports-dtrac
e-oracle-linux-213759">Oracle ports DTrace to Oracle Linux</a>
PJ's comment "[Cf. Simon Phipps on Twitter: "How can such a
kernel-integrated tool be kept proprietary?" Indeed. How? Oracle wouldn't
violate someone's license terms, would it?]"
Quote from article "Oracle is not alone in porting DTrace -- the code for
which is available under an open source license -- to Linux"
This does say the source code is available? What part is proprietary? Am I
missing something here?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 03:25 PM EST |
Issa's investigation into Aaron's death could be useful, but remember that
Issa's real target is political, not legal, i.e., Attorney General Holder. So, I
question Issa's motives. If he finds he can't reach Holder, I'm not sure how
vigorously he will pursue the investigation.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cricketjeff on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 04:36 PM EST |
Why?
An anonymous person makes a comment to a relatively unknown writer and it's a
newspick???
---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JamesK on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 05:36 PM EST |
So, who pressed the F8 key to put it into safe mode? ;-)
---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 11:44 PM EST |
Kim Dotcom suffered a setback in his
extradition case yesterday
when an appeals court in New
Zealand reversed a High Court
ruling that the FBI had to turn over more
discovery in
order to allow him to prepare for his extradition hearing.
(A
discussion of the High Court's ruling is he
re and the text
of the ruling is here.) The
Appeals Court says the
disclosure is not required.
While the ruling
is in the context of what information
the U.S. must disclose to Kim Dotcom to
enable him to defend
against the extradition request, it also serves as a
primer
on NZ extradition law. The full opinion is here. The Court has also
issued this press
release explaining the
decision.
Ki
m Dotcom: Setback
in NZ Appeals Court (court files are
PDFs)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 04 2013 @ 07:13 AM EST |
<blockquote>[PJ: Here's what I'd like: to be able to retrace my steps and
find the car when I go to the mall. And why couldn't that work for old folks,
trying to find their way home, after they experience a senior moment of
confusion?] </blockquote>
In my opinion, an "old folk" who experiences "senior moments of
confusion" should not be behind the wheel of an automobile. Why should we
enable technology to help mask their problems in dealing with the world around
them? The earlier that their friends and family realize that there's a problem,
the earlier they can seek help in dealing with whatever the underlying cause of
the "senior moments of confusion" might be, whether it be Alzheimer's,
dementia, or something else.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TiddlyPom on Monday, March 04 2013 @ 07:25 AM EST |
I am using a Chromebook (which is an A
cer C7 - upgraded to 8GB RAM and with a 240GB SSD) as a
development laptop but running (Chr)Ubuntu 12.04 instead of Chrome OS. Chrome
OS is somewhat limited but very pretty and boots from cold to desktop is about
15 seconds. Chrubuntu takes slightly longer (about 20-25 seconds)
but transforms this little beauty into a fantastic Linux based laptop! If I
could figure out how to build a 'blessed' kernel and could boot Ubuntu natively
from CoreBoot then I could have Ubuntu booting from cold in 15 seconds or
less!
Why oh why won't Acer, Samsung or sombody else bite the bullet
and put a mainstream Linux distribution (such as Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Fedora,
openSuSE or Mageia - as long as the end user could swap it out for their
favourite distro!) on a decent specification laptop (and not Linpus or Linspire
either!). I have shown this laptop to lots of people and they are all amazed at
both the price and the performance. Even with its basic 2GB RAM and 340GB hard
disk it would still fly.
I would LOVE to have a Google Pixelbook but
with a decent sized fast SSD on it and a mainstream Linux distro pre-loaded. If
that was sold in mainstream shops (like PCWorld for instance) then I think it
would be a real competitor to Windows laptops and Apple
Macbooks.
---
Support Software Freedom - use GPL licenced software
like Linux and LibreOffice instead of proprietary software like Microsoft
Windows/Office or Apple OS/X [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 04 2013 @ 04:23 PM EST |
The
Atlantic, PJ comments [a letter to the prosecutor]
doesn't match her account about the manifesto. This, to me, puts a new
light on
things.
The letter was written the day after her "proffer"
grilling. The Grand Jury testimony was given two months later, with time as we
were told to prepare, to be in
control. What doesn't match for me is that a
journalist with her personal history, an obvious gift for writing exactly what
she wants us to read, nothing less, nothing
more, moving amongst the "counter
culture", could be so innocent of how the "system" works.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
