Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Increased Use Of Windows BitLocker Is Causing Headaches For Linux Dual Booting

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

  • #51
    Originally posted by Vlad42 View Post

    Either you have no idea what the hell you are talking about or trolling (and failing at it). Microsoft's cloud business is Azure, which is Linux.
    Running on Windows offering Linux instances. I know you're thick, but don't be.

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by andyprough View Post
      Maybe that's what's going wrong for the Ukraine army right now - Virtualbox won't pass through the USB rocket launchers to the Windows-only launch program.
      Funny; HIMARS M142 development began in 1996, the same year USB entered the market. But it's based on the MLRS M270 from 1983, the same year Windows 1.0 was announced Anyhow, recent versions probably have PowerPC SBCs as fire-control computers:
      https://www.militaryaerospace.com/co...ocket-launcher

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by erniv2 View Post

        you also need to every time repeat this deactivate bitlocker again cycle
        No. From the next boot the sequence used to boot Windows is considered valid. In this case, it is "shim - grub - Windows bootloader". But any other sequence will result in recovery prompt for BL key.

        Originally posted by erniv2 View Post
        if your media gets stolen and installed in a new pc you dont want it to say hey ok i let you boot because someone told me it´s ok to before i was stolen hahaha.....
        Ha. Haha. Go read about PCRs used by BitLocker. Then come again with another bright idea.
        Last edited by openminded; 27 July 2022, 06:48 PM.

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by birdie View Post

          Running on Windows offering Linux instances. I know you're thick, but don't be.
          Is that your only response when presented with inconvenient facts, personal attacks? I see you have made it clear you are only interested in being an obnoxious troll with no argument whatsoever.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post
            Which is why Microsoft has been investing so much into Linux (including the kernel) in these areas. I mean Microsoft Azure runs more Linux instances than Windows server and they honestly don't care, they embrace Linux in this regard (also WSL).
            Microsoft "embraces" Linux on Azure for the reason you mention, that it's the majority of their customer base. When you're getting paid to "embrace" something, that's worth noting. Plenty of other IT businesses support Linux, contribute code, provide hardware register information, etc. without being paid $billions to do so.

            Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post
            For those same reasons they also don't care about the bootloader issues with Windows/Linux dual booting, they have no skin in the game in this regard.
            Precisely. When the use case doesn't drive company revenue, they don't give two craps about it. This is exactly why I have to laugh every time someone claims Microsoft is now FOSS friendly. Nope, they're not. They're $profit$ friendly, and nothing more.

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by drakonas777 View Post

              Just ignore him. He is known Intel/NVIDIA/Microsoft fanboy. His pattern is like:
              a) say something stupid or misleading;
              b) wait for constructive crticism;
              c) declare received criticism as an insult or hate and block user with different opinion;
              d) repeat;

              Oh, also the more "fuck" you write, the better. Some 13 year old mentality. Don't bother with him.
              I feel a single call out for his most outlandish statements is necessary, otherwise someone might actually believe his bullshit.

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by Vlad42 View Post

                Is that your only response when presented with inconvenient facts, personal attacks? I see you have made it clear you are only interested in being an obnoxious troll with no argument whatsoever.
                I've lost you, sorry. There's not a single word in your reply pertaining to this news piece. Maybe I will ignore your inanity from now on as well. Volta and drakonas777 are already there. Lastly, maybe you're also delusional but I've not attacked anyone in this discussion. You, Volta and drakonas777 on the other hand just cannot stop insulting me. Actually, it's what I'll do right away. Farewell, sir.

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by binarybanana View Post

                  So what? It's a Microsoft business and they get the money. A lot of money. They even have their own Linux distro nowadays. Yes, hell froze over, welcome to a brave new world.
                  edit: The point I'm trying to get across is that they don't care what you run on Azure. They make their money selling instances and what you do with them doesn't affect their bottom line. Microsoft only cares about Linux up to the point it helps integratikg it into Azure (and their whole ecosystem as a whole) better, like Linux HyperV or WSL. But they don't give a shit about Linux or Linux users beyond that or how Linux users perceive them. If Linux died tomorrow they'd be more than happy.
                  I agree with everything you said. However, the claim made that Azure has nothing to do with Linux was disingenuous at best. If a big client needed this issue addressed for some Azure use case (or anything else that would make them money), then Microsoft would have a solution within a month.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
                    Microsoft "embraces" Linux on Azure for the reason you mention, that it's the majority of their customer base. When you're getting paid to "embrace" something, that's worth noting. Plenty of other IT businesses support Linux, contribute code, provide hardware register information, etc. without being paid $billions to do so.


                    Precisely. When the use case doesn't drive company revenue, they don't give two craps about it. This is exactly why I have to laugh every time someone claims Microsoft is now FOSS friendly. Nope, they're not. They're $profit$ friendly, and nothing more.
                    All companies are $profit$ friendly and nothing more. The ones that "don't get paid $billions" to contribute code and what not do so because they earn money as an effect of it as well. At most, the difference may be some make the money directly off offering good Linux support (Amazon, MS, RHEL for licenses) and some benefit from the software itself (saving on servers when the kernel runs efficiently, such as Netflix and Facebook, Google by spying on Android devices). No company has your best interest at heart, all of them has their own self benefit (or, rather, their investors') as the top and only priority. A company being FLOSS friendly generally means they have a business model that is, at the time, convenient to FLOSS software, not that they're selfless.

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

                      Currently, unless you use something universal like OpenZFS, the OS that encrypts it is the OS that decrypts and manipulates it. "Sorted out" would be porting BitLocker to Linux and LUKS1&2 to Windows because this is literally disk encryption working as expected.
                      Several OSs implementing the same solution for full-disk encryption would be nice... MS now "loves Linux" and has linux devs with the relevant skillset on their payroll so they can probably solve the issue if they feel like it... ... nah

                      Originally posted by anarki2 View Post

                      They've been known for years and they've been "resolved" years ago. All you have to do is boot Windows from the UEFI boot menu, and NOT from Grub's built-in, auto-detected "Windows" entry. That's it, you won't get the Bitlocker recovery screen anymore. Magic!
                      I'm glad to know the built-in boot menu in UEFI is a valid solution to avoid boot issues. Unfortunately I can recall at least 2 UEFI devices I own(ed) where there is no boot menu hotkey, only the options available in the BIOS/UEFI configs... one doesn't even have a way to boot once to a specific option, I have to reconfigure the boot order (like a Neanderthal )

                      Originally posted by Neuro-Chef View Post
                      Interesting. I already gave up un Bitlocker, because I thought booting Linux did somehow cause the TPM Key to be deleted. Needing Windows only for occasional 4K HDR output and to reset that bloody Lenovo ThinkPad Ultra Docks USB ports every few weeks, this wasn't a real priority, but good to know it is possible to use Bitlocker conveniently.


                      Like efibootmgr already does?

                      $ sudo efibootmgr
                      BootCurrent: 0006
                      Timeout: 1 seconds
                      BootOrder: 0006,0000,0004
                      Boot0000* Windows Boot Manager
                      Boot0004* Hard Drive
                      Boot0006* Fedora

                      $ sudo efibootmgr --bootnext 0

                      There are Windows tools as well, but I didn't try those:
                      https://github.com/pgaskin/bootnext
                      https://github.com/i255/efiboot
                      Hopefully integrating this sort of option to distro GUI is not too far off on the ToDo list...

                      IIRC on windows this is a native OS option already, but it is burried deep deep deep in the rat maze that their system settings and advanced options.

                      This is not just useful to avoid dual-boot issues with windows... it's also useful to avoid mashing the boot menu button and rebooting 10 times in a row because the system boots too fast.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X