Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Windows 8 Hardware Has Another Problem For Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by mjg59 View Post
    Untrue. Windows 8 will boot fine with Secure Boot turned off, even if it was installed with it turned on. However, if it was a UEFI install, you'll still need to boot via UEFI.



    Untrue. Just use a modern Linux distribution - Fedora, Ubuntu and OpenSuse all support Secure Boot.
    I've been using Mageia. Maybe I'll give fedora a try since it's most similar to Mageia.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Grogan View Post
      No, it doesn't make sense to not probe for hardware, just to shave a few seconds off boot times. It just makes those systems fragile pieces of garbage. Resuming the system from an image leads to fragility too, just for the illusion of fast booting. This only impresses people who don't know any better.

      I'm sick of Microsoft and their clever bollocks... the need to fool people into thinking their OS isn't bloated has gotten us systems that BSOD (and sometimes windows breaks itself and still doesn't boot even if you set it back) if you so much as change the disk controller mode in the BIOS. (starting with Vista, Windows no longer probes for disk controllers at boot, once installed.) Now this.

      This is what you get, when you allow a greedy, parasitic, environment polluting corporation like Microsoft to dictate hardware implementations.

      I'm not sure I agree with the stance distros are taking on this. We should not work around this, the broken hardware should be absolutely shunned if this kind of crap (fastboot and secure boot) can't be disabled in the BIOS. That "secureboot" mostly protects Microsoft's interests, not ours.

      Most malware won't be affected by that, it's relatively rare to have bootkits and kernel mode rootkits. I obviously see some, but for the most part it's high level trojans and adware that antivirus software doesn't even stop (maybe later it will detect it, too late), because it comes across as a legitimate software install. I see a lot of crippling, user based malware too, using available mechanisms in the user's registry (run key, runonce, shell override/appendage or even the startup directory to load) and once it's in place, it's game over for most users. No privilege elevation prompts required for this.

      This horseshit is going to make it more difficult to boot with other media to remove malware, if anything.
      Don't want to play with Microsoft's requirements? Get a System76 notebook. Problem solved.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by mjg59 View Post
        Untrue. Windows 8 will boot fine with Secure Boot turned off, even if it was installed with it turned on. However, if it was a UEFI install, you'll still need to boot via UEFI.



        Untrue. Just use a modern Linux distribution - Fedora, Ubuntu and OpenSuse all support Secure Boot.
        Fuck that. Give me one good reason why anybody should support sellouts? They only boot because they use a microsoft issued key. What gives microsoft the right to issue keys? I make a LiveDVD that not many people use. It requires that secureboot be disabled because I refuse to sellout.
        Last edited by duby229; 05-29-2013, 01:57 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by duby229 View Post
          What gives microsoft the right to issue keys?
          The absence of anyone else able and willing to do it?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
            Don't want to play with Microsoft's requirements? Get a System76 notebook. Problem solved.
            Personally I'd happily do that if they provided AMD-based laptops.

            On topic: and I'm sure microsoft *NEVER* meant to make it harder for people to install alternative OS, right?
            First the new EULA that stated windows and the machine were a bundle (although that's clearly against EU consumer laws), then it became increasingly common to have laptops delivered with 4 partitions taken for no obvious reason, Secure Boot... Now "details" like this... It must be mere coincidence, right? Right.

            Comment


            • #36
              Until "Personal Computer" has a definition and specification, that is officially backed-up by a law, we will have this problem over and over again.
              Or Linux users should just unite, lay-out a spec and contact specific manufacturers to create "Personal Computer".

              I see only these two options. Linux has 5% of desktop exactly because we waste time and they dictate the conditions.

              I also suggest everyone running non-microsoft on notebook or workstation in public place print and attach this sticker (BY-CC):

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by PsynoKhi0 View Post
                Personally I'd happily do that if they provided AMD-based laptops.

                On topic: and I'm sure microsoft *NEVER* meant to make it harder for people to install alternative OS, right?
                First the new EULA that stated windows and the machine were a bundle (although that's clearly against EU consumer laws), then it became increasingly common to have laptops delivered with 4 partitions taken for no obvious reason, Secure Boot... Now "details" like this... It must be mere coincidence, right? Right.
                Sonadow is pro-microsoft turfer here, don't be surprised.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by TheLexMachine View Post
                  What you are referring to are flash chips soldered onto the board and those are only found in a handful of those older Ultra-portables and Apple's stuff. Neither of which are overly popular with Linux users and mSATA is likely going to kick those to the curb now that more companies are making mSATA SSDs which are going into the new Ultrabooks. It's really not a problem except for those who make it their problem by poor decision making when it comes to hardware purchases.
                  You forgot netbooks and tablets. Most of them also have soldered SSDs.

                  Originally posted by Larian View Post
                  I disagree rather strongly. To my way of thinking, physical media will be (and probably should be) required for the foreseeable future. What are you to do when, not if, your hard drive fails and that magical restore partition can't be accessed? Dead drives must be replaced, and they don't always die in a gentle manner that you can see coming. Maybe you had a head crash when your laptop took a spill off the sofa, or maybe something ate sector 0 on the drive. Either way, the thing is dead and it ain't coming back. So is there a need for a restore disk? You'd better believe it.
                  Indeed. Also, creating invisible partitions is just rude to begin with. And extremely wasteful if you are still using MBR disks, where you can only have so many primary partitions.

                  Originally posted by TheLexMachine View Post
                  Prove to me they aren't true. Linux has always been distributed on CDs and DVDs and that's the preferred medium that most people are using and have been using for a long time. I've never once installed Linux from a USB drive in the almost ten years I've been using Linux nor have I ever seen any other Linux user in my social or professional circles - including LUGs - doing it. Could I do it? Yes, I could. But why would I waste a $20 flash drive for bragging rights when I can just burn a $2.50 CD-R/DVD-R that I've got laying around or just go out and buy the latest issue of a Linux magazine for $10 that caters to my preferred distro and has an install CD.
                  Feel free to make a poll somewhere. Personally I have not used a CD/DVD to install any Linux distribution since 2006. The last Linux LiveCD I have is an ancient GPartEd one, and that's just because it doesn't usually need to change that often.

                  Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                  Thing is, Microsoft is managing Fast Boot via its Advance Boot Menu which allows users to 'tell' the firmware whether the next boot should be done with full firmware initialization or with just the barest minimum while letting Windows initialize the rest via the OS (which is the default behavior). Are you able to write a tool similar to the Advanced Boot Menu that allows Linux users to do this through the OS, much like what you did with shim?
                  Taking advantage of that would be pretty neat, but it doesn't solve the issue discussed in this thread.

                  Originally posted by Grogan View Post
                  No, it doesn't make sense to not probe for hardware, just to shave a few seconds off boot times. It just makes those systems fragile pieces of garbage. Resuming the system from an image leads to fragility too, just for the illusion of fast booting. This only impresses people who don't know any better.
                  You know, that does make me wonder. Since coreboot works the same way, it's also susceptible to the same caveats, I'd imagine. If it uses SeaBIOS/TianoCore/GRUB as a payload, then everything is good as long as said payload is not corrupted. But if it is, then you'd have a broken link... Unless it can read from USB first, and use whatever is at the start of the drive as a payload?

                  Originally posted by mithion View Post
                  I've been using Mageia. Maybe I'll give fedora a try since it's most similar to Mageia.
                  Just turn off Secure Boot. It really doesn't do anything at this point.

                  Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                  Don't want to play with Microsoft's requirements? Get a System76 notebook. Problem solved.
                  Or Dell (Ubuntu). Or HP (SLED). Or ASUS (Ubuntu). Or Acer (Linpus). Or anything else that ships with Linux.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by brosis View Post
                    I also suggest everyone running non-microsoft on notebook or workstation in public place print and attach this sticker (BY-CC):

                    That will go great on those airbooks hipsters use while they pretend to write screenplays in Starbucks.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      How to prevent MS from getting info from the computer at "first run"

                      Originally posted by phoronix View Post
                      Phoronix: Windows 8 Hardware Has Another Problem For Linux

                      With a brand new PC certified for Microsoft Windows 8 and shipping the OS, even if you don't plan to use the operating system, it can be difficult to bypass the Windows license agreement before wiping it to install your favorite Linux distribution...

                      http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM4MDY
                      If you don't want one of these machines to "phone home" to Microsoft with hardware information and a claim that you agreed to (or rejected) the license, you must boot where there is no open wifi network available if the machine has a wifi card, and with no other network connection attached. Do what you need to do, then kill the evidence before physically permitting a network connection. If they treat us as Black Hats, we must learn to think like Black Hats, just like using a buffer overflow to root a smartphone.

                      If you are after a laptop, consider buying a Chromebook. Many use Coreboot, all can wipe Chrome OS and accept your favorite distro, and none pay the Windoze Taz. Since you can use these as the basis of new laptops and build your own desktops, there is probably never a reason to buy anything with Windoze 8 on it new unless you are after a very particular machine.

                      One more option: Ask the computer store if they have a machine on which Windows won't start, normally an unsalable reject. You might get a price break on it. I got my last netbook that way, they didn't tell me but the price was rock-bottom, and the one thing "defective" was the one thing I was overwriting: Windoze. I think they knew me well enough to know Windows was being wiped, and brought me their "discount special." I'm glad they did, I saved money and they saved trouble. I've never bothered trying to get back the "Windoze Tax," I evade it on desktops by building my own from new parts or junk as the situation calls for. Hell, a good motherboard with a unlocked/umlockable bootloader and good overclocking support to boot cost less than a Windoze license anyway.

                      Never buy crap with soldered down HDDs or SDDs, look on Google via Tor to make sure a removable drive is offered before buying. Drives FAIL, this is as
                      bad as all that iCrap with batteries that can't be replaced. Don't buy that shit either. Planned obsolescence is not acceptable. If that sort of shit continues, look for all those Arduino/Raspberry PI/etc boards to become widely used to build "pirate" smartphones and laptops like so many pirate radio transmitters. Slow but free and serviceable.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                        Taking advantage of that would be pretty neat, but it doesn't solve the issue discussed in this thread.
                        .
                        I think it does.

                        Look at it this way: fastboot initializes so little in the firmware that it can hand off to the operating system in the hard disk / SSD almost immediately upon power on. The window to hit a modifier key to interrupt the initialization process is so small, it's essentially impossible.

                        If Linux has an Advanced Startup boot menu similar to Microsoft's, a user who is not able to boot into a distribution (either because of some kernel issues or other major problems) will see the OS attempting to boot a few times, give up and automatically throw up the Advanced Boot menu to offer troubleshooting options. Ditto for accessing the UEFI menu; if the keyboard is not going to be initialized by the firmware, an Advanced Boot menu provides an elegant way for a user to reboot the machine directly into the UEFI menu without having to hammer F2 / F10 / Del repeatedly on reboot.

                        Matthew just said in the previous page that someone was working on such a tool; I hope, and look forward, to seeing it eventually become a core component of any desktop Linux distribution. It also solves the whole 'each OEM machine has a different method for accessing the BIOS / UEFI menu' issue big time. Instead of having to dig out documentation on how to access the UEFI menu for each OEM machine, users just need to know 1 way to do it; reboot into it directly via the Advanced Boot option in the OS.

                        Or Dell (Ubuntu). Or HP (SLED). Or ASUS (Ubuntu). Or Acer (Linpus). Or anything else that ships with Linux.
                        Or boutique notebook stores that specialize in high-specced, custom notebooks based off a stock Clevo chassis. I know there are many such shops in the West that sell high-end Clevo-based notebooks online.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by TheLexMachine View Post
                          Hardly anyone installs Linux from a USB thumb drive anyway so it's not really a problem except on Ultrabooks/Ultra portables, which don't have optical drives to begin with, and those aren't very popular amongst Linux users as it is.
                          I havent had a laptop with an optical drive ever. To me the CD has always been a backup solution when the USB stick fails no matter what computer Im using.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                            I make a LiveDVD that not many people use. It requires that secureboot be disabled because I refuse to sellout.
                            You refuse to sell out but have you taken any action to improve the situation with the manufacturers. Have you tried to get your own key embedded into their systems? See where the problem lies? You have to convince the manufacturers to add your key to their secureboot. If you are unwilling to take on that task, don't expect anyone else to. Otherwise you can optionally use the MS issued key.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                              You refuse to sell out but have you taken any action to improve the situation with the manufacturers. Have you tried to get your own key embedded into their systems? See where the problem lies? You have to convince the manufacturers to add your key to their secureboot. If you are unwilling to take on that task, don't expect anyone else to. Otherwise you can optionally use the MS issued key.
                              I remember both Matthew and Bottomley saying that it is possible for a user to generate his own set of keys and certificates to enroll into the Secure Boot using a combination of OpenSSL and a signing tool which was recently made available on the OpenSUSE Build Service.

                              While the process is extremely complex and mistake-prone (i don't even understand half the instructions published), it does provide a way for savvy users to generate their own ring of trust around their own machines.

                              More importantly, if generating the keys and the certificates and getting them enrolled into Secure Boot at the UEFI level requires such a complex and mistake-prone process, it makes sense that no one else is willing to undertake the task.
                              Last edited by Sonadow; 05-29-2013, 03:27 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                                I think it does.

                                Look at it this way: fastboot initializes so little in the firmware that it can hand off to the operating system in the hard disk / SSD almost immediately upon power on. The window to hit a modifier key to interrupt the initialization process is so small, it's essentially impossible.

                                If Linux has an Advanced Startup boot menu similar to Microsoft's, a user who is not able to boot into a distribution (either because of some kernel issues or other major problems) will see the OS attempting to boot a few times, give up and automatically throw up the Advanced Boot menu to offer troubleshooting options. Ditto for accessing the UEFI menu; if the keyboard is not going to be initialized by the firmware, an Advanced Boot menu provides an elegant way for a user to reboot the machine directly into the UEFI menu without having to hammer F2 / F10 / Del repeatedly on reboot.
                                That's not the issue here... The issue is that you are forced to accept the Windows EULA no matter what. You can't access the UEFI menu in any way before pressing the accept button. Otherwise it's all good, once you have access to the UEFI options, you can just as easily switch fast boot off.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X