Re: Fedora Pays Microsoft Boot License fee.

Patricia,

UEFI boot modification is trivial; Installfests currently teach others (at
some level) to "roll their own".

- Linux <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel> has been able to use
EFI at boot time since early
2000,*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed>
* using the elilo <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elilo> EFI boot loader
or, more recently, EFI versions of GRUB<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRUB>
.[33]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#cite_note-debiangrubexample-32>Grub+Linux
also supports booting from a GUID partition table without UEFI.
[14]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#cite_note-grub_BIOS_install-13>
- HP-UX <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP-UX> has used (U)EFI as its boot
mechanism on IA-64 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA-64> systems since
2002.
- HP OpenVMS <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenVMS> has used (U)EFI on
IA-64 since its initial evaluation release in December 2003, and for
production releases since January
2005.[34]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#cite_note-33>
- Apple <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc.> uses EFI for its line
of Intel-based
Macs<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93Intel_architecture>.
Mac OS X v10.4 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_v10.4> Tiger for
Intel and Mac OS X v10.5
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_v10.5>Leopard implement EFI
v1.10 in 32-bit mode, even on 64-bit CPUs (newer Macs
have 64-bit EFI, but full support will not arrive until Mac OS X 10.8
Mountain Lion <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_10.8_Mountain_Lion>
).[35]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#cite_note-appleuefiversion1-34>
- The Itanium <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium> versions of Windows
2000 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2000> (Advanced Server
Limited Edition and Datacenter Server Limited Edition) implemented EFI 1.10
in 2002. MS Windows Server
2003<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_2003>for
IA-64 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IA-64>, MS Windows XP 64-bit
Edition<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_64-bit_Edition>and
Windows
2000 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2000> Advanced Server Limited
Edition, all of which are for the Intel
Itanium<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium>family of processors,
implement EFI, a requirement of the platform through
the DIG64 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIG64>
specification.[36]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#cite_note-35>
- Microsoft introduced UEFI for x86-64 Windows operating systems
with Windows
Server 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_2008> and Windows
Vista Service Pack
1<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista_Service_Pack_1>,
so the 64-bit versions of Windows
7<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7>are compatible with EFI.
Microsoft does not implement 32-bit UEFI since
vendors did not have any interest in producing native 32-bit UEFI firmware
because of the mainstream status of 64-bit
computing.[37]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#cite_note-WindowsVistaUEFI-36>Microsoft
has released a video with Andrew Ritz and Jamie Schwartz
explaining Pre-OS UEFI functions on Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008.
[38]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#cite_note-37>
- Microsoft will demand that computers with the "Designed for Windows 8"
logo to use UEFI with secure
boot<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_boot>(which will only allow
signed software to run on the device) enabled by
default.[39]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#cite_note-Windows8UEFISecureBoot-38>
[40]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#cite_note-Windows8UEFIClarifies-39>
Red
Hat <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat> developer Matthew Garrett
raised concerns over the requirement for secure booting to be enabled by
default and Microsoft responded by saying that there was no mandate from
Microsoft that prevents secure booting from being disabled in firmware or
that keys could not be updated and
managed.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#cite_note-Windows8UEFISecureBoot-38><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#cite_note-Windows8UEFIClarifies-39>
- Microsoft has been protecting Desktop Support Careers since 1998!



On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Patricia Wilson <wilson.pr.gm@gmail.com>wrote:

> Ahh the day of the Dongle.
>
> I expect a much higher than average number of people on this list can
> "roll their own" -- that is certainly not the case in general even amongst
> linux users.
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 7:58 AM, keith smith <klsmith2020@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> During the mid 80's software manufactures tried to lock down their
>> software. What they found was stopping pirating entirely reduced sales.
>> Who would have known. The thought at the time was that without the ability
>> to copy and try, some were unwilling to buy. Unintended byproduct. The
>> other thing that happens was a work around. There were several apps that
>> would unlock the software and allow it to be installed anywhere.
>>
>> If the hardware manufactures lock down their hardware several things are
>> going to happen. someone will create an open source / free app to beat the
>> hardware lock.
>>
>> Another unintended consequence could be surplus (used) hardware become
>> unusable.
>>
>> Another consequence could be a niche market for unlocked hardware, which
>> could cause the OEM's to lose market share.
>>
>> Yet another unintended consequence is the potential for increased support
>> by M$. I seem to recall a number of years ago M$ tried to lock down it's
>> OS and support was a big issue and they stopped the practice.
>>
>> If they lock down the hardware, I will not buy Dell or HP any longer. I
>> will build my own.
>>
>> ------------------------
>> Keith Smith
>>
>> --- On *Sat, 6/9/12, Derek Trotter <expat.arizonan@gmail.com>* wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Derek Trotter <expat.arizonan@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: Fedora Pays Microsoft Boot License fee.
>> To: "Main PLUG discussion list" <plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us>
>> Date: Saturday, June 9, 2012, 9:13 PM
>>
>>
>> From the article mentioned in the original post:
>>
>> Microsoft’s practice is facilitated by the UEFI, or Unified Extensible
>> Firmware Interface, which allows a manufacturer to lock down the boot
>> process so that it will only work on their specified conditions.
>>
>> What's to keep Microsoft from telling a manufacturer they must lock down
>> the machine so no other operating system will boot on it if they want
>> licenses to install windows on their machines?
>>
>> On 6/9/2012 17:14, Eric Shubert wrote:
>>
>> I don't see how that would be a problem. Please reference exact part of
>> the article which leads you to believe that.
>>
>> BL, there's a lot of misinformation about this. I don't think it's
>> anything to be concerned about.
>>
>>
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>
>>
> --
> Sent from my super hot-shot dual core 64 bit Gateway running Ubuntu 12
> from the chrome/teak/glass desktop in my Luxo Scottsdale condo.
>
> Patricia Wilson
> Apache Junction, AZ
> Member NRA, ARRL
> WB8DXX
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>



--
(503) 754-4452 Android
(623) 239-3392 Skype
(623) 688-3392 Google Voice
**
<http://it-clowns.com>Safeway.com
Automation Engineer
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss