Page 1 of 1

Anyone concerned over UEFI?

Posted: 10 Nov 2011, 22:34
by agreimann
I know in another post there's talk of what the FSF is doing to fight against this. This one's kinda has a different subject--should we be concerned about it? To look at a little history, the iPod has always had encrypted firmware. Hackers figured out how to solve the problem in the first iPod models. Later, however, iPods got "smarter" to the point where now an iPod touch 4G can get 'jailbroken' but running a full, unlocked Linux on it is becoming hard, if not impossible, to do. And to be honest, going back to the FSF, no one stopped Apple from building the next iPhone, and they need to face the fact that no one will listen this time either.

Will Fedora, Ubuntu, and others eventually fade out into obilivion? It's hard to say who will survive the new overhaul. People didn't know what to think of newer software and hardware, only to have Canonical start only addressing 32-bit computers that were capable of Unity. Now, trying to run Linux on something like an i440 has become extremely hard to do.

Macintoshes, right now use EFI. Ubuntu, Fedora, and others can boot right through that. But it took work from several developers. That's the bright side. We just need to brace up and be ready--it's the only way that Linux will survive in the future. No one said that developing FOSS would be easy, or that the world would sit back and quietly let their proprietary systems get encroached on.

Re: Anyone concerned over UEFI?

Posted: 11 Nov 2011, 09:41
by BlackRider
And to be honest, going back to the FSF, no one stopped Apple from building the next iPhone, and they need to face the fact that no one will listen this time either.
There are almost 20,000 signatures for the campaing right now. It is evident that someone has "listened". It is open to debate if the signatures will help.
Will Fedora, Ubuntu, and others eventually fade out into obilivion?
That's not likely. Last time I checked the marked, many UEFI motherboards claimed to support GNU/Linux (well, one claimed to have been testing with Red Hat, which is more or less the same). The Linux kernel has the technology to run under (U)EFI environments, and so will it unless special measures are taken to prevent it from running. Should the worst happen, every mainstream vendor implementing unbreakable Secure Boot, Linux users would turn to self-building or buying from a friendly OEM. Zareason is not going to play tricks on Linux users, for sure. The UEFI standard states that some special booting modes must be implemented in order to do maintenance tasks, anyway, and this allows to disable the Secure Boot feature. Every vendor who prevents any given operating system from being installed would be breaking the standard, and there are ways to legally twist their arms in such a case.

Other thing people uses to ignore is that many vendors are profiting from GNU/Linux. There is an HPC supercomputer in my University which was installed by HP, and the vendor clearly stated that it would be supported only if the University used Red Hat Linux with it. Red Hat and HP seem to have many agreements so the former produces optimized code for the second, and both earn money because of this. I guess HP, IBM and dome others do not want to kill Linux at all, and won't implement a hardware lockdown which breaks a defined standard and reduces the amount of potential buyers while risking offending a convenient business ally.

I am more worried because UEFI (Linux lockdown aside) seems to be a huge pile of crap, and it is becoming the standard. A true lock is not likely to happen in the short term, at least with a big amount of vendors, and Linux users will immediately turn to the vendors who provide the services we need.

However, I would like anybody worried to sign for the FSF campaign. Even if you think there is no reason to worry, or that it won't work, contributing takes very little time and adds weight to our cause. What the FSF manifesto says is basically: "We have * signatures of people who won't buy your computers if you cripple them down, and will recommend hardware form your competitors if you do so".

Re: Anyone concerned over UEFI?

Posted: 11 Nov 2011, 19:18
by agreimann
It's not necessarily Unified Extensible Firmware Interface I'm worried about (Ubuntu, for instance, can address Macs with EFI, and PCs with UEFI). It's what *Microsoft* will do to *complement* EFI in their own sneaky way, which would lock out Linux. While I pose the question, "Will Fedora, Ubuntu, and others eventually fade out into obilivion?" I also state what I know from maintaining and repairing some Macs a while ago: "Macintoshes, right now use EFI. Ubuntu, Fedora, and others can boot right through that. But it took work from several developers." But we really shouldn't take this threat too lightly. And, no, with the off-topic example of the iPhone and iPod that FSF fought, Apple obviously has released the 4S as locked down as the others have been. The FSF didn't change that. And why would you sign the FSF petition anyway? It's not whether the people signing listened--it's whether the companies working with Microsoft certification will listen. Sooner or later, we'll have to use an UEFI machine (on a newer Itanium server, for instance) one way or another, breaking the petition agreement stance when they come. It's like promising not to use a 64-bit netbook, which HP is already manufacturing. So I, for one, really am concerned over UEFI + Secure Boot, to be honest. And what further bothers me is that UEFI is not really a good replacement for BIOS, anyway... in fact, it's not the "jump" on security that its been painted to be at all.

Re: Anyone concerned over UEFI?

Posted: 11 Nov 2011, 23:50
by BlackRider
But we really shouldn't take this threat too lightly.
We both agree about this.
And why would you sign the FSF petition anyway?
Because it makes no harm, costs you not much time or money and it is better than doing nothing.
Sooner or later, we'll have to use an UEFI machine (on a newer Itanium server, for instance) one way or another, breaking the petition agreement stance when they come.
The petition is not about UEFI, it is about locked pseudo-UEFI boards. I stand with what I said: shall a big number of vendors sell a crippled UEFI-like systems, they will be sent into court. At least in Spain, a vendor who claims to be selling you a device which adheres to an standard but does not so will lose lots of bucks because of legal actions. A UEFI device that allows not Secure Boot disabling is not a UEFI device, but another thing, and if you buy it thinking it is UEFI you have a base to sue the maker. I have to read the specification and ask a lawyer, but I think law is by our side.

And no, vendors are not killing Unixoids in the server side. Unixoids move a lot of money there. The only market which is at stake is the domestic market, but many vendors seem to be including BIOS compatibility modes in their boards and some others specifically state that they are Debian/Ubuntu/Suse/Fedora/Red Hat compatible. Just vote with your dollars and buy from these OEM.
And what further bothers me is that UEFI is not really a good replacement for BIOS
Again, we think the same. BIOS was not perfect. UEFI is a joke.

Re: Anyone concerned over UEFI?

Posted: 12 Nov 2011, 17:05
by agreimann
I agree on your BIOS/UEFI points strongly (the shift is not a very smart one AT ALL; to add to that, a study a while ago confirmed this). I really believe Apple's closest to great implementation for their AIM/PowerPC architecture was OpenFirmware; the route to (U)EFI with the i686 ( & x86_64 on later machines) switch really botched this up. And I see where you're coming at with the petition. Really, what I'm trying to convey is that in the workplace, for instance, someone may just have to (as in required to) use a UEFI + "Secure Boot" server or workstation/box, which would breach the agreement to the petition signed.... but that's really just my opinion, and maybe a mute point, if nothing else. It is possible the FSF might prevail here--only time will tell. And... in the future, I do think there needs to be people who do purchase a Windows 8 certified PC and figure out how "Secure Boot" ticks. But you are right here. I think that if companies know they're opening a can of worms, where they can be litigated on top of that for selling this new specification against wishes, they'll most likely back down on it than play hard ball. I really think that the Linux community has trumped obstacles once, and will do so again, such as NTFS 3G. Now if the Protogon FS will become a problem is a totally different matter of speaking...

Regards,