PDA

View Full Version : The coming war on general computation



wolf_rt
12th January 2012, 14:35
Seems like i may have got a bit excited over nothing on this one... See paul's reply for a more useful analysis of the situation :ohwell:




The coming war on general computation / Microsoft screws us again.

The new UEFI standard will soon replace the BIOS standard in new PC's

The word Microsoft appears 24 times in the spec... no other vendor names make an appearance.
UEFI/BIOS controls how your Operating System (OS) communicates with your hardware.

the computer your using now has BIOS..(all the text that displays when you boot your computer) old, slow and insecure... but at least YOU control it.)

The new UEFI standard requires a 'key' from Microsoft for your computer to boot... there is no reason this 'key' should be supplied by Microsoft...
It would be far MORE secure if this 'key' was created by you, it's not, and this gives Microsoft the ability to dictate what OS you run on your computer (as well as a heap of other powers)

Now Microsoft has said "we wont use this power"... hmm where have i heard that before?

Good quality motherboards will have a 'button' to bypass this requirement (or MS would get it's pants sued off)
However it is very likely that cheap "DELL / HP" style computers won't... DON'T BUY ONE OF THESE PC's

You are far better of (and always have been) getting a small computer store to 'build' a PC to your specification... Make sure your spec includes being able to bypass this Microsoft 'key' requirement.

Here's some more on the problems with UEFI
https://plus.google.com/116991477553830108888/posts/3cfEmPkkUAd

It also appears that Windows 8, will be set up to run 'apps' more so than programs, much like a 'Ipad', with all the problems this entails (mostly not actually 'owning' or having control over your data)

DON'T buy Windows 8!


Here's a good talk on the future of computational liberty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HUEvRyemKSg

conk
12th January 2012, 15:28
They're turning up the heat on the little froggie. Soon he'll be hot as hell and totally controlled.

wolf_rt
12th January 2012, 15:39
There will always be a way around this crap... its just convenience factor, and judging by the uptake of those stupid I-pads etc, people don't care much...

jcocks
12th January 2012, 16:15
There will always be a way around this crap... its just convenience factor, and judging by the uptake of those stupid I-pads etc, people don't care much...

Have you actually used one? We have an android tablet and an Ipad in our house. They're great for the kids, and I find them fun too. I don't store (and willl never store) senstive data on them though - but that's not what they are made for.

wolf_rt
12th January 2012, 16:30
I had a play with one at a store.... seemed like a big smartphone... if its anything like the 'smartphone' i have it would end up in the bin after a week.. lol

And for the price, i could build myself a sizzling new gaming rig, or get one of those graphics cards that needs a whole power station to run it, or something...

I wont even buy a laptop, cause i cant pull it apart and play with it :-)

Bryn ap Gwilym
12th January 2012, 16:45
The Glider community warned about this a few years back only to get laughed & insulted as tinfoil nutters etc by m/soft, apple along with their followers.

The Glider community has also been holding a good number of seminars of late. The fight back has begun.

Maybe its time that the folk who continue to use such products as m/soft & apple after they have been warned deserve each other?


U0JH0ZzjefE

alienHunter
12th January 2012, 16:55
I always roll my own...Microsoft has always aspired to rule the world. That's their style...It's good for the old free market principles. It begat the 'open' software world.

wolf_rt
12th January 2012, 17:14
I'm ashamed to admit i still run windows.... Mainly due to the fact that i enjoy PC gaming.. though i really should have a dual boot setup.

I had a bad Linux experience in the 90's where after reading a 3inch thick book, i still couldn't get my Linux install to connect to the internet.

Windows 7 is even worse than XP... at least it doesn't chew 4gigs of downloads patching every time you install it. But it does have a mind of its own, and i hate to think what data is being sent out from my PC. And it is painfully slow as soon as you install all the anti virus, ect. and it still gets loaded up with s*** in about 3 days.

Where would you guys recommend starting with Linux? or even GNU...after all it has a catchy song...lol

I have looked into it, but it seems most Linux sites are geared toward people who know what there doing... lol... any tips?

alienHunter
12th January 2012, 17:33
You're not alone there...I saw intelligent Unix administrators nearly reduced to tears fighting that battle. Windows 7 I found really weird in the 'permissions' department so you are right about it having a mind of its own...actually, it really doesn't either, it's got Microsoft brain in there,
I ended up reverting to Vista. Linux is not bad actually, I think Redhat is open software...you might give it a shot. (Keep in mind though the installation is usually painful for all the different platforms) As for MicroSoft in general, I gotta tell you that even the science world is being won over. It's just that MS loves to get their hooks in you.

toad
12th January 2012, 17:49
Meh. Windows 8 is doomed for failure, as is Microsoft. Once Bill Gates left and a marketing man took over, they have gone downhill fast. IMO install Linux.

Bryn ap Gwilym
12th January 2012, 18:07
I'm ashamed to admit i still run windows.... Mainly due to the fact that i enjoy PC gaming.. though i really should have a dual boot setup.

I had a bad Linux experience in the 90's where after reading a 3inch thick book, i still couldn't get my Linux install to connect to the internet.

Windows 7 is even worse than XP... at least it doesn't chew 4gigs of downloads patching every time you install it. But it does have a mind of its own, and i hate to think what data is being sent out from my PC. And it is painfully slow as soon as you install all the anti virus, ect. and it still gets loaded up with s*** in about 3 days.

Where would you guys recommend starting with Linux? or even GNU...after all it has a catchy song...lol

I have looked into it, but it seems most Linux sites are geared toward people who know what there doing... lol... any tips?

Hi.
In a nutshell..

Over the last few years the GNU/Linux operating system has come on leaps & bounds & user friendly as it is now focused on Noobs from elsewhere & not before time. It is still a very powerful tool, but now all can now enjoy its freedom. It has 100's if not 1000's of different distros in one form or other that cater for young children to the complete geek. It also has distros that are up to date but are small enough to work on old computers. Good news for folk who are strapped for cash or if you want to bring some life back into an old rig.

For noobs there are several distros that I alone can recommend depending on your taste.
Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu)
kubuntu (http://www.kubuntu.org/)
Mint (http://linuxmint.com/)
Puppy (http://www.puppylinux.com/)
Distowatch (http://distrowatch.com/) - Here is the top 100 distros that will give you some better insight into what you are looking for.

There are also many videos via the likes of youtube showing the desktop layout.

Some useful info:

GNU (http://www.gnu.org/) is the operating system & Linux is the kernel. There have been & there are still some heated & comical debates on the correct name to use which leaves most folk including myself at one point left in limbo.
The Linux operating system by its correct title is called GNU/Linux (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html)
GNU/Linux naming controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy)

wolf_rt
12th January 2012, 18:32
Ok i had a look at those links, and i'm confused already... gnome gnome2 gnome3 Cinnamon..... wtf?

I have a fast PC, id like something that's fully featured and allows customization, but id also like to use my computer in the next month.... Ubuntu?

Will choosing a particular distribution effect which programs will run? i'm thinking not?

going to make a boot cd and give that a whirl.

TargeT
12th January 2012, 18:54
microsoft has NOTHING todo with BIOS... and never will...

BIOS has NOTHING TODO with how your computer communicates with your computers hard ware.. (after bootup is done) and never will...

this article stinks badly.. I've been in IT for 13 years, who wrote that, or did you write it? When people with out a tech. background try and write on this subject, its vastly more complex than most people realise and its easy to spot idiocy like the original post...


In IBM PC compatible computers, the basic input/output system (BIOS), also known as the System BIOS or ROM BIOS ( /ˈbaɪ.oʊs/), is a de facto standard defining a firmware interface.[1] The name originated in earlier computers running CP/M and other operating systems, where the BIOS was loaded from disc rather than stored as firmware (EPROMs were not yet available); and from around 2010 the BIOS firmware of PCs started to be replaced by a Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIOS

BIOS used to do some of what you describe, but now it just starts the computer up and hands everything off to the OS.. the BIOS is like, a pre flight check list.. thats it.. the check list won't be flying the plane.

& UEFI works about the same way:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Efi_flowchart_extended.svg/360px-Efi_flowchart_extended.svg.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface

yes there' s a bit more work todo if your a LINUX guy. but guess what, not many people are :P

this is really akin to having an IPHONE that isn't jail broken.. does it work ? yes...

does it work really well & have support? yes

Can you install anything you want on it? No

do you have to buy it? No..........

Paul
12th January 2012, 19:01
The word Microsoft appears 24 times in the spec... no other vendor names make an appearance.
The current Unified Extensible Firmware Interface Specification (Version 2.3.1, Errata A, September 7, 2011) is available at http://www.uefi.org/specs/.

Yes, the word "Microsoft" appears 20 times in that document. Here's nine of those appearances -- from the references section near the end of the document:

Microsoft Extensible Firmware Initiative FAT32 File System Specification, Version 1.03, Microsoft Corporation, December 6, 2000, http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/ firmware/fatgen.mspx
Microsoft Portable Executable and Common Object File Format Specification, Version 8.1, http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/firmware/PECOFF.mspx, Microsoft Corporation, March 27, 2008
Microsoft Windows Authenticode Portable Executable Signature Format, Version 1.0, Microsoft Corporation, March 21, 2008, http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/c/5/9c5b2167-8017-4bae-9fde-d599bac8184a/Authenticode_PE.docx

The other mentions are primarily mentions in the body of the UEFI specification to these three Microsoft specifications. What matters to me in this matter is more that those specifications are open and usable by anyone. Someone needed to step up and define certain object file and signature formats; it matters little who did it so long as anyone can develop conforming products.

It is false that no other vendor's name appears in that UEFI spec. The word "Intel" appears 77 times, and one of their architectures, Itanium, is named 67 times. Other vendors I see mentioned include IBM, HP, AMD, RSA, HP and Toshiba. Itanium is mentioned so many times because the original EFI firmware was first developed for use on Intel's Itanium platform.


UEFI/BIOS controls how your Operating System (OS) communicates with your hardware.
Not quite so, except perhaps quite indirectly. The motherboard firmware (BIOS or UEFI) is what the hardware boots into, and what then (usually) boots the operating system (Windows, Linux or whatever). Once the operating system is booted, it talks directly to the hardware in most cases, without going through the motherboard firmware unless that's more convenient and sufficient performance.

If your system is a fully functional Trusted Computing Platform then the motherboard firmware did indirectly control all access to the hardware, because it would then control what operating system could be booted, thus indirectly controlling all subsequent use of the hardware.


The new UEFI standard requires a 'key' from Microsoft for your computer to boot... there is no reason this 'key' should be supplied by Microsoft...
False. The UEFI spec does not require a key at all; just specifies how it works if a "secure" boot (trusted computing platform) is enabled. UEFI covers many aspects of the motherboard firmware. The firmware on any given motherboard can be compliant with the UEFI spec with or without secure booting enforced, and the motherboard manufacturer can put in several keys, of their own or other vendors, as they see fit. Nothing in the UEFI spec even suggests that all keys have to come from Microsoft, or that all motherboards can only be booted requiring such a key.


It would be far MORE secure if this 'key' was created by you, it's not, and this gives Microsoft the ability to dictate what OS you run on your computer (as well as a heap of other powers)
Gibberish. The intent, when enabled, is that the vendors of a platforms hardware and software can, when and if they choose, have a platform that cannot be "jail broken". End user provided keys would accomplish nothing in providing such security.


Now Microsoft has said "we wont use this power"... hmm where have i heard that before?
A well deserved slam of Microsoft :). However in this context it distracts from what risks this spec presents.

Microsoft requires (http://mjg59.livejournal.com/138973.html) that machines conforming to the Windows 8 logo program and running a client version of Windows 8 ship with secure boot enabled. It is up to the hardware vendor at that point whether or not to provide a firmware option to disable secure boot (which would allow booting other operating systems such as Linux).

Hardware vendors selling motherboards separately, for those such as myself that build their own PC's, will continue, I'm sure, to ship their boards with secure boot not enabled, and with instructions on how to enable it if you want to purchase a separate Windows 8 license and run that.


Good quality motherboards will have a 'button' to bypass this requirement (or MS would get it's pants sued off)
However it is very likely that cheap "DELL / HP" style computers won't... DON'T BUY ONE OF THESE PC's
Agreed. This situation resembles what we already see in routers, cell phones, hand helds and tablets. Some of it is intended to support booting your own choice of operating sytem, but most of the mass produced stuff is intended to only run the vendor provided operating code.

wolf_rt
12th January 2012, 19:01
Thats fine... I don't claim to be an expert, and the post wasn't about defining bios.

Good quality motherboards will have a 'button' to bypass this requirement (or MS would get it's pants sued off)
However it is very likely that cheap "DELL / HP" style computers won't... DON'T BUY ONE OF THESE PC's

do you agree with statement? or am i on the wrong track here too?


thanks for clearing that up paul... so we don't really have anything to worry about here then?

Paul
12th January 2012, 19:04
Good quality motherboards will have a 'button' to bypass this requirement (or MS would get it's pants sued off)
However it is very likely that cheap "DELL / HP" style computers won't... DON'T BUY ONE OF THESE PC's

do you agree with statement? or am i on the wrong track here too?
Yes, I agree with that statement. I quoted the same statement and said "Agreed" in my previous reply :).

wolf_rt
12th January 2012, 19:09
lol I was replying to TargeT.. you posted at the same time.

TargeT
12th January 2012, 19:15
so we don't really have anything to worry about here then?

on this one, its no more insidious than an IPHONE is now (which granted, is quite annoying, but easy to get around)

Microsoft can play these games all they want, there's enough people out there that will find a work around .. basicaly instantly... hahaha

sorry computers are PUBLIC DOMAIN now, you sell the **** and its GOING to get hacked/modded (no negative connotation)


Ok i had a look at those links, and i'm confused already... gnome gnome2 gnome3 Cinnamon..... wtf?

I have a fast PC, id like something that's fully featured and allows customization, but id also like to use my computer in the next month.... Ubuntu?

Will choosing a particular distribution effect which programs will run? i'm thinking not?

going to make a boot cd and give that a whirl.

I wouldn't go to linux unless your ready to deal with possible issues... you can always Dual boot, that's great.. or run VMware player (www.vmware.com) and virtualize then run what ever u want ;)

If ur happy with what u have now I wouldn't change, especialy not because of the info in this thread.

Paul
12th January 2012, 19:16
thanks for clearing that up paul... so we don't really have anything to worry about here then?
If Microsoft can dominate the market channels enough with their approved hardware that only runs Windows, and lean on hardware vendors enough to make it sufficiently difficult to turn off the "Trusted Computer" secure boot checks, then that would make getting desktop PC hardware that can run Linux more difficult and expensive. But an increasing concentration of desktop PC purchasers likely have serious needs that cannot be met with a smaller platform (handheld or laptop) and so some of them (enough that they cannot be ignored) will become increasingly aware of the desirability of being able to run their choice of operating system.

Most folks who just buy something off the shelf are already going towards non-PC hardware anyway, with cell phones, handheld readers, tablets and at most laptops that they never modify except perhaps for adding a memory stick.

It is in such "smaller" hardware, not desktop PC's that the battle will be fought. Except for laptops, Microsoft is already having sufficient difficulty getting their favored monopoly positing that the risk of them "owning" the space seems small.

The availability and price competitiveness of Linux laptops will continue to suffer, relative to Windows laptops.

TargeT
12th January 2012, 19:19
The availability and price competitiveness of Linux laptops will continue to suffer, relative to Windows laptops.

I think the avaliblity and competitiveness would not suffer if windows started getting all draconian & it effected users... but your right, this is kind of a non issue for 80% of the population of home PC users.

Paul
12th January 2012, 19:24
BIOS used to do some of what you describe, but now it just starts the computer up and hands everything off to the OS.. the BIOS is like, a pre flight check list.. thats it.. the check list won't be flying the plane.

& UEFI works about the same way:

UEFI has quite a bit more code. It is very much like running DOS with a custom (low res) graphical interface. You can even load your own executables on your /boot disk partition and run those from a shell prompt within UEFI, if you set it up right. Just like DOS, there are a variety of builtin commands (like DIR to list a directory) builtin to the command line shell.

To be clear, most UEFI users will never find that command line shell prompt, just staying inside the custom "BIOS" like app to configure their hardware and choose what to boot, happy that they can finally use their mouse while inside their "nicer looking BIOS".

toad
12th January 2012, 19:39
I'm ashamed to admit i still run windows.... Mainly due to the fact that i enjoy PC gaming.. though i really should have a dual boot setup.

I had a bad Linux experience in the 90's where after reading a 3inch thick book, i still couldn't get my Linux install to connect to the internet.

Windows 7 is even worse than XP... at least it doesn't chew 4gigs of downloads patching every time you install it. But it does have a mind of its own, and i hate to think what data is being sent out from my PC. And it is painfully slow as soon as you install all the anti virus, ect. and it still gets loaded up with s*** in about 3 days.

Where would you guys recommend starting with Linux? or even GNU...after all it has a catchy song...lol

I have looked into it, but it seems most Linux sites are geared toward people who know what there doing... lol... any tips?

Hi.
In a nutshell..

Over the last few years the GNU/Linux operating system has come on leaps & bounds & user friendly as it is now focused on Noobs from elsewhere & not before time. It is still a very powerful tool, but now all can now enjoy its freedom. It has 100's if not 1000's of different distros in one form or other that cater for young children to the complete geek. It also has distros that are up to date but are small enough to work on old computers. Good news for folk who are strapped for cash or if you want to bring some life back into an old rig.

For noobs there are several distros that I alone can recommend depending on your taste.
Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu)
kubuntu (http://www.kubuntu.org/)
Mint (http://linuxmint.com/)
Puppy (http://www.puppylinux.com/)
Distowatch (http://distrowatch.com/) - Here is the top 100 distros that will give you some better insight into what you are looking for.

There are also many videos via the likes of youtube showing the desktop layout.

Some useful info:

GNU (http://www.gnu.org/) is the operating system & Linux is the kernel. There have been & there are still some heated & comical debates on the correct name to use which leaves most folk including myself at one point left in limbo.
The Linux operating system by its correct title is called GNU/Linux (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html)
GNU/Linux naming controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy)

Bryn is absolutely correct; Linux has come along way, along long way. Ubuntu is a great place to start. I've seen people who are basic Windows users use Ubuntu and not even tell they were using Linux. It gives you a pretty primitive GUI to use and become comfortable with, and the ability to use a terminal if you'd like. Not to mention Linux is so much more safer and secure; its software is distributed mainly be a central source of which you can be sure of; virii is incredibly rare and nearly impossible to corrupt your system unless you allow it to; some basic knowledge will eliminate most threats. Not to mention it is all open source; and FREE!



I wouldn't go to Windows unless your ready to deal with possible issues...


FIXED *** haha.

butcherman
12th January 2012, 19:50
yep get a mac book it runs linux had mine 6 years no problems.

wolf_rt
12th January 2012, 19:52
I wouldn't go to linux unless your ready to deal with possible issues... you can always Dual boot, that's great.. or run VMware player (www.vmware.com) and virtualize then run what ever u want

If ur happy with what u have now I wouldn't change, especialy not because of the info in this thread.

Cheers mate... I'm defiantly not happy with windows 7... its slow, although gaming performance is good compared to XP.. I been using computers since dos 3.1 (actually Apple IIe) so i'm not a total ignoramus... despite my OP here...lol

I managed to compile and get a GUI running with Linux in the late 90's early 00's - just couldn't get my dial up modem working (might have had a chance if i had a computer that could connect to the net at the time) so i feel i should be able to work through any problems. (i have other pc's now)

I'm making a bootable Ubuntu cd now to have a play with, and see if i like it.

TargeT
12th January 2012, 20:01
I'm a slackware fan ( or was) haven't had a linux setup for a while now... windows 7 is a pig & needs good hardware.. but I'm a some-times-gamer so windows is kinda where its at :-/

I run windows 7 64bit on a core i7 proccessor (the only one you should use with win 7 IMO... or an i5 at the very least) with 16gb of ram pretty smoothly on this laptop, but that's some new(er) hardware.

Linux wasn't too clunky or difficult to use the last time I installed it and that was years ago, I bet you'll be pretty happy with what they have to offer now as the community seems to have lost its elitest attitude.

Bryn ap Gwilym
12th January 2012, 20:20
For more info on this by the hackers (coders) themselves.

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc142/monktonman/slashdot.png
Source (http://slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=new+UEFI)


One must also understand that users of Proprietary software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html) operating systems such as m/soft & apple will do their best to rubbish GNU.

To uncover what is truly going on one must be prepared to trawl through the conversations via the Glider community.

wolf_rt
12th January 2012, 20:22
i have an i5 760 with 4gig ddr3 2000... really thought that would be enough for web browsing... but apparently not... makes you wonder what it is doing. once programs are loaded it gets along alright..

TargeT
12th January 2012, 20:30
i have an i5 760 with 4gig ddr3 2000... really thought that would be enough for web browsing... but apparently not... makes you wonder what it is doing. once programs are loaded it gets along alright..

should be more than enough yeah.. but 4gig is (IMO) low.. haha I know i know... 32bit is limited to 4gb... but really, thats why I went 64bit (and ram is SO CHEAP now)


These links might help you out.. definately worth a shot:

Windows 7 optimization:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/Optimize-Windows-7-for-better-performance

http://www.pcworld.com/article/172351/optimize_your_windows_7_pc.html

and of course google will find u more :)

wolf_rt
12th January 2012, 20:38
Speaking to you now from the strange (with poor refresh rate, and super sensitive mouse) world of Linux :-)

Cheers for that, i'll defiantly check it out, as if i decide to run Linux, i will have to have dual boot, as im also a gamer.

I have 64bit... i just didn't think id need more than 4gig...lol.. who knew? And 2000 speed ram wasn't cheap when i built this system

Paul
13th January 2012, 04:39
Aha - another twist in this UEFI controversy - posted today at http://www.softwarefreedom.org/blog/2012/jan/12/microsoft-confirms-UEFI-fears-locks-down-ARM/
Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices
By Aaron Williamson | January 12, 2012

At the beginning of December, we warned the Copyright Office that operating system vendors would use UEFI secure boot anticompetitively, by colluding with hardware partners to exclude alternative operating systems. As Glyn Moody points out, Microsoft has wasted no time in revising its Windows Hardware Certification Requirements to effectively ban most alternative operating systems on ARM-based devices that ship with Windows 8.

The Certification Requirements define (on page 116) a "custom" secure boot mode, in which a physically present user can add signatures for alternative operating systems to the system's signature database, allowing the system to boot those operating systems. But for ARM devices, Custom Mode is prohibited: "On an ARM system, it is forbidden to enable Custom Mode. Only Standard Mode may be enable." [sic] Nor will users have the choice to simply disable secure boot, as they will on non-ARM systems: "Disabling Secure [Boot] MUST NOT be possible on ARM systems." [sic] Between these two requirements, any ARM device that ships with Windows 8 will never run another operating system, unless it is signed with a preloaded key or a security exploit is found that enables users to circumvent secure boot.

While UEFI secure boot is ostensibly about protecting user security, these non-standard restrictions have nothing to do with security. For non-ARM systems, Microsoft requires that Custom Mode be enabled—a perverse demand if Custom Mode is a security threat. But the ARM market is different for Microsoft in three important respects:

Microsoft's hardware partners are different for ARM. ...
Microsoft doesn't need to support legacy Windows versions on ARM. ...
Microsoft doesn't control sufficient market share on mobile devices to raise antitrust concerns....

The article raises several good points, including noting that Microsoft would not want to disable running earlier versions of Windows (98, XP, Vista, Windows 7) on PC hardware. These earlier versions are not digitally signed; so Microsoft can't close out Linux on Intel PC's this way, without closing out its own customers from running earlier versions.

wolf_rt
13th January 2012, 09:15
Just thought i would give an update on my Linux experience, for anyone who may be thinking of switching over..

I chose Ubuntu 11.10

VERY easy... i made a bootable USB stick.... do not think you are getting the full experience if you do this, the HDD install was far smoother, better looking, and hassle free. No wi/fi hassles, no driver hassles.. nothing... well i use a 3500dpi mouse, and it was over sensitive, but i found an easy work around on the net in 5min (i also re installed windows at the same time, and the network wont work...typical)

I have all my favourite programs installed (I was already an open source fan) already.. and everything works first go with no re-booting.

the user interface is straight forward and user friendly... i feel at home after a few hours.

perfect!

modwiz
13th January 2012, 09:35
They're turning up the heat on the little froggie. Soon he'll be hot as hell and totally controlled.

Boiled frog syndrome yes. More like shish-kebob though. (It's made with lamb.)

toad
13th January 2012, 18:11
GRUB makes dual boots real easy. I rarely boot into windows less I need to for work. I still love photoshop/illustrator.

TigaHawk
13th January 2012, 19:09
ive heard of this system... over 10 years ago

Microsoft wanted to put it in then - they were met with that much resistance they ran tail between legs.


the end reason why they want this kind of system has everything to do with "piracy".


The end result is, they want a system in place, so every single piece of software on you're pc has its own key, which gets tied to you're pc's unique key.

Should a single piece of software be classed as warez or illigeal, they then have hte power to disable you're pc, completely. A Killswitch, if you will.

meat suit
22nd January 2012, 20:38
I have done a dual boot ubuntu 11 too now, and its great..loads of free software etc.
only thing thats a pain is that I dont seem to find how to sort the display contrast and colours.... the display settings options in ubuntu seem very basic..

Carmody
23rd January 2012, 00:56
thanks for clearing that up paul... so we don't really have anything to worry about here then?
If Microsoft can dominate the market channels enough with their approved hardware that only runs Windows, and lean on hardware vendors enough to make it sufficiently difficult to turn off the "Trusted Computer" secure boot checks, then that would make getting desktop PC hardware that can run Linux more difficult and expensive. But an increasing concentration of desktop PC purchasers likely have serious needs that cannot be met with a smaller platform (handheld or laptop) and so some of them (enough that they cannot be ignored) will become increasingly aware of the desirability of being able to run their choice of operating system.


To add in:

Specifically and powerfully so when the application is custom software design running under linux or the like. Many businesses have custom software made for them, as most software packages are nice... yes..but backdoors, weaknesses, and the inability to write certain routines for specific applications... can be a real problem. writing your own code is still an option. not at the C or assembler level, but I like to think that a linux platform is both more secure and more capable when it comes to custom application.

When doing your own code, you KNOW where the problem areas are. Which can be critical.

Anchor
23rd January 2012, 03:28
Lucky there are a few geeks on Avalon to dispel the fud

< runs away >

Carmody
23rd January 2012, 16:54
thanks for clearing that up paul... so we don't really have anything to worry about here then?
If Microsoft can dominate the market channels enough with their approved hardware that only runs Windows, and lean on hardware vendors enough to make it sufficiently difficult to turn off the "Trusted Computer" secure boot checks, then that would make getting desktop PC hardware that can run Linux more difficult and expensive. But an increasing concentration of desktop PC purchasers likely have serious needs that cannot be met with a smaller platform (handheld or laptop) and so some of them (enough that they cannot be ignored) will become increasingly aware of the desirability of being able to run their choice of operating system.


To add in:

Specifically and powerfully so when the application is custom software design running under linux or the like. Many businesses have custom software made for them, as most software packages are nice... yes..but backdoors, weaknesses, and the inability to write certain routines for specific applications... can be a real problem. writing your own code is still an option. not at the C or assembler level, but I like to think that a linux platform is both more secure and more capable when it comes to custom application.

When doing your own code, you KNOW where the problem areas are. Which can be critical.

Another point is that viruses and other programs that break systems down in any way....cannot exist in in an environment where the people making the software know assembler. And that said programmers prepare for any potential takeover of the hardware.

our problems with viruses stem from illiterate programmers. If one does not know the basics of assembler, then they should not be programming, IMO and IME. Specifically... they should not be programming for critical infrastructure control.

Semi-Perfect protection (it will never be perfect) against sabotage of critical infrastructure can be enacted but at cost of about a 30%-50% slowdown of the given software. Depends on what the program is doing, but in critical infrastructure control that slowdown is probably not critical, regarding computing power and speed of control actions (micro seconds to milliseconds of time lag, with respect to enacting a given sequence of mechanical operations--say a water plant or nuke plant). The problem is that the software has to be built for the specific hardware. It's been a long time since I coded assembler..but in my recall, it would be difficult to 'slip by' with any nefarious bits of coding..in the given use of any program that is built for 'protection', protection that is done properly at the assembler level.

The advantage is that when done at the assembler level..the 'gauntlet' that a nefarious bit of code has to surmount or pass by is much smaller as we are talking about hardware enacting and sequencing in the direct sense. Thus, the potential scenarios that have to be planned for are decreased dramatically....down to what is a near controllable level of scenarios.

Paul
23rd January 2012, 17:20
Another point is that viruses and other programs that break systems down in any way....cannot exist in in an environment where the people making the software know assembler.
Not necessarily so :) :cow: :)

Ken Thompson put a backdoor virus into a few builds of the original C compiler, which went unnoticed until he described it, in his Turing Award Lecture: Reflections on Trusting Trust (http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html). It allowed him to login to any system whose login program had been compiled with that compiler.

Granted, this reply of mine could be read as further reason to actually code critical infrastructure in assembler, not a compiled language such as C. On the other hand, the quantity and complexity of code that has become critical (by some metrics), including the code underlying the Internet, is far too vast, complex and changing to hand code or to maintain in assembler.

Carmody
23rd January 2012, 17:25
Another point is that viruses and other programs that break systems down in any way....cannot exist in in an environment where the people making the software know assembler.
Not necessarily so :) :cow: :)

Ken Thompson put a backdoor virus into a few builds of the original C compiler, which went unnoticed until he described it, in his Turing Award Lecture: Reflections on Trusting Trust (http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html). It allowed him to login to any system whose login program had been compiled with that compiler.

which is why I said that one must specifically 'know their assembler. which is next to impossible, as the complexity of knowing sequencing (the extension -length before reset to neutral conditions, etc- and ordering of sequencing) and the number of cycles -would be near insane.

I think that the best that could be done..is to have a compiler built for the specific tasks of checking for potential routines or sequencing. Now THAT would take some brain grunting, but I think it is possible. The compiler would have to built/designed for the given hardware that the software is going to be run on. (a secondary run through, almost, to 'check' for any potential violations)

The standard 'my guys is smarter than your guys' syndrome. Not quite back to square one and also that assembler geeks are pretty thin on the ground these days.

So few people understand this stuff anymore. Which was kinda inevitable as the complexity grew to such gargantuan levels. But the basics of sequencing at that level does help limit the doorways and sequencing to FINITE levels. And that is the key.

Paul
23rd January 2012, 17:33
which is why I said that one must specifically 'know their assembler. which is next to impossible, as the complexity of knowing
sequencing (the extension -length before rest to neutral conditions, etc- and ordering of sequencing) and the number of cycles -would be near insane.
Agreed. You were too quick - quoting me as I edited and extended my post :).

I could further show off by mentioning the complexity of the underlying hardware - such as in the CPU's and firmware :). This is further complexity whose perfect knowing approaches the impossible.

Carmody
23rd January 2012, 18:34
which is why I said that one must specifically 'know their assembler. which is next to impossible, as the complexity of knowing
sequencing (the extension -length before rest to neutral conditions, etc- and ordering of sequencing) and the number of cycles -would be near insane.
Agreed. You were too quick - quoting me as I edited and extended my post :).

I could further show off by mentioning the complexity of the underlying hardware - such as in the CPU's and firmware :). This is further complexity whose perfect knowing approaches the impossible.

Yes, back in the 8086 days, approx...what I'm thinking of would have been possible. Oddly, but not unexpectedly..with today's hindsight. As the command sets increased in complexity the capacity to do so became much more limited as the level of possible permutations went into the stratosphere. I did assembler on 8086 to 486 command sets, and that was crazy enough. At least the changes (in each generation) were logical and expected. But each hardware level increase resulted in a seeming exponential increase in potential complexity (from the one view of designing protection). The simplest method these days would be to design a limited hardware set - right from the get go. Totally in-house, and only the big boys are doing that these days. And even they can't keep it straight. They are not paranoid enough....oddly. All it takes is one unguarded design parameter.

Kind of a wasted side discussion but interesting nonetheless.

When I did assembler, we were trained in the software, and the hardware connectivity and implementation, bus, interrupts, etc. We did our own wiring and boards designs and even the manufacturing of said boards (two sided). granted, we did it only at up to the 286 levels and the like as examples of hardware and software combination design function. Not too many people these days know their hardware at that intimate level, and I've forgotten most of it. I was trained as a technologist, or the person who builds the prototype proofs for design engineers.

Paul
23rd January 2012, 20:08
When I did assembler, we were trained in the software, and the hardware connectivity and implementation, bus, interrupts, etc. We did our own wiring and boards designs and even the manufacturing of said boards (two sided). granted, we did it only at up to the 286 levels and the like as examples of hardware and software combination design functionThose were the good days :). (Though I preferred PDP and Motorola 6800 instruction sets to Intel :).) I still have a half pound of good 60-40 tin-lead solder left from those days, and the related tools.

Black Panther
23rd January 2012, 23:22
I have bought a Medion i7, 8GB, 64 bit with Windows 7.
It works great. With a SSD for a quick boot.

Never heard of UEFI before. Interesting.

I know Microsoft Windows is very bad. A lot of frustration all these years :),
but it is really working fine now. Have two screens too so I can read a message
on one screen and reply on the other.

Have also Ipad2. It's expensive, but it works great to get on the internet real
fast and it's great to watch pictures or videos with others in the living room.

I guess they have much more technology for us in store in their Area 51 bases.

Anchor
24th January 2012, 02:29
I still have a half pound of good 60-40 tin-lead solder left from those days, and the related tools.

In Australia you can still buy it :)

I find in somewhat comforting that people still know something about assembler and instruction codes for CPU's. Most of us are 40 yrs +

Paul
24th January 2012, 03:15
Never heard of UEFI before. Interesting.
Intel has been working EFI (http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/unified-extensible-firmware-interface/efi-homepage-general-technology.html) (the original name) for a while. My notes on how to use the EFI shell (essentially this table (http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/efi-shells-and-scripting/)) are dated June 2000. It's basically DOS in a boot rom, rewritten from scratch by Intel, without any Microsoft licensed code.