Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #37446 > unrolled thread
| Started by | pH <wNOSPAMp@gmail.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-03-06 18:13 +0000 |
| Last post | 2023-03-08 13:20 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 103 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
uefi malware--threat to all? pH <wNOSPAMp@gmail.org> - 2023-03-06 18:13 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-06 19:14 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2023-03-06 21:07 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? pH <wNOSPAMp@gmail.org> - 2023-03-07 00:36 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "28B.I874" <28B.I874@noabzba.net> - 2023-03-06 20:10 -0500
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2023-03-06 17:11 -0800
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "28B.I874" <28B.I874@noabzba.net> - 2023-03-07 00:46 -0500
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2023-03-07 08:42 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2023-03-07 08:01 -0800
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-07 16:49 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2023-03-07 19:08 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2023-03-07 21:33 -0800
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "28B.A864" <28B.A864@noqbgba.net> - 2023-03-16 01:24 -0400
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-16 09:59 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2023-03-16 15:18 -0400
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2023-03-16 21:05 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2023-03-16 21:06 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "29V.X746" <29V.X746@noqb1u.net> - 2023-03-16 22:43 -0400
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-03-17 11:20 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-17 11:56 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2023-03-17 15:00 -0400
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-03-17 22:57 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "29V.X746" <29V.X746@noqb1u.net> - 2023-03-17 22:03 -0400
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-18 09:55 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "29V.X746" <29V.X746@noqb1u.net> - 2023-03-17 21:55 -0400
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2023-03-19 04:13 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "29V.X746" <29V.X746@noqb1u.net> - 2023-03-19 02:38 -0400
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-03-19 11:40 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2023-03-19 13:12 -0700
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "29V.X746" <29V.X746@noqb1u.net> - 2023-03-20 01:05 -0400
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2023-03-21 03:09 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-20 20:27 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "29V.X746" <29V.X746@noqb1u.net> - 2023-03-20 21:48 -0400
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-17 11:47 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2023-03-17 12:36 -0400
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-17 11:46 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2023-03-17 12:44 -0400
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-03-16 22:14 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2023-03-17 13:09 -0400
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-03-17 23:35 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-17 11:39 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2023-03-21 02:03 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "29V.X746" <29V.X746@noqb1u.net> - 2023-03-21 01:13 -0400
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-21 09:00 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-03-21 11:52 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-03-21 11:52 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2023-03-21 10:30 -0400
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2023-03-21 15:43 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2023-03-21 12:29 -0400
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2023-03-21 17:46 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-202303.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2023-03-23 23:44 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? jeshgrca <jeshgrca@gmail.com> - 2023-03-23 21:56 -0500
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-202303.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2023-03-25 01:58 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "27E.G756" <27E.G756@noq24u.net> - 2023-03-26 20:26 -0400
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-03-27 02:37 +0200
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "27E.G756" <27E.G756@noq24u.net> - 2023-03-26 23:11 -0400
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-03-27 11:45 +0200
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "27E.G756" <27E.G756@noq24u.net> - 2023-03-28 01:09 -0400
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2023-03-28 01:26 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "27E.G756" <27E.G756@noq24u.net> - 2023-03-28 01:16 -0400
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2023-03-21 08:28 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2023-03-21 10:22 -0400
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-03-21 15:54 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2023-03-21 18:25 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-03-21 21:20 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "27E.G756" <27E.G756@noq24u.net> - 2023-03-26 23:25 -0400
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-03-27 11:47 +0200
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "27E.G756" <27E.G756@noq24u.net> - 2023-03-28 23:01 -0400
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2023-03-29 16:43 +1000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "22T.R732" <22TR732@noq24u.net> - 2023-03-30 21:41 -0400
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2023-03-21 10:46 -0400
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-03-07 09:07 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-03-07 13:00 -0500
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2023-03-07 19:09 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-03-07 14:56 -0500
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2023-03-07 19:09 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "28B.I874" <28B.I874@noabzba.net> - 2023-03-07 21:39 -0500
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-03-07 22:35 -0500
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "28B.I874" <28B.I874@noabzba.net> - 2023-03-08 01:29 -0500
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-03-08 01:48 -0500
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "28C.I874" <28C.I874@noabgba.net> - 2023-03-08 20:35 -0500
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-08 07:57 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-08 08:59 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-08 10:15 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-08 15:14 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2023-03-08 16:06 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2023-03-08 16:59 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-08 17:55 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-08 17:59 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-03-08 20:33 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2023-03-08 22:35 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2023-03-21 08:49 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2023-03-07 08:40 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "Andrei Z." <no-email@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-07 18:11 +0300
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? pH <wNOSPAMp@gmail.org> - 2023-03-07 20:44 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-03-07 16:32 -0500
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2023-03-21 08:27 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-07 21:38 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2023-03-07 21:38 -0800
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-03-08 12:00 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-08 11:06 +0000
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> - 2023-03-08 12:50 +0100
Re: uefi malware--threat to all? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-03-08 13:20 +0100
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-21 08:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tvbmbk$4e5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37561 |
Am 21.03.2023 um 02:03:30 Uhr schrieb Roger Blake: > On 2023-03-16, TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> wrote: > > Adobe Reader DC, for use with New York State income tax forms. > > Nothing else, I mean NOTHING, even other Windows pdf readers, will > > do for them. > > Will an earlier version of the Adobe reader work? Adobe Reader 9 will > run natively on Linux. (I have it installed on Mint 21.) Does it still work? No dependency/library problems? Filling should be possible, but IIRC older versions don't support all features from new Acrobat versions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-21 10:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tvceju$4v3k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37561 |
On 2023-03-20 22:03, Roger Blake wrote: > On 2023-03-16, TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> wrote: >> Adobe Reader DC, for use with New York State income tax forms. Nothing >> else, I mean NOTHING, even other Windows pdf readers, will do for them. > > Will an earlier version of the Adobe reader work? Adobe Reader 9 will > run natively on Linux. (I have it installed on Mint 21.) > Not the way it's designed to work it. When they first came out with these forms you needed Adobe Reader 10 to be able to save the entries on these forms. Earlier versions would let you fill the fields in, but you had to do everything in one session, and print to pdf or use a scanner to get an electronic copy. At that time they still had a plain paper form available, but you had to fill it in manually. I just discovered that the "plain" paper form is now "fill-in" like the IRS forms, but still doesn't have the extra features that the other form has. That means that if you file THAT form, it will go to the bottom of the State's pile for extra scrutiny, which will be the last they get to, after those that filed online, and after those that use the fancier paper form, and will delay any refund I might have coming for several weeks. This year's refund arrived less than a month after I filed the paper form. I'm OK with that, even if I had to use Windows. TJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-21 15:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k1toejxlv5.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #37571 |
On 2023-03-21 15:22, TJ wrote: > On 2023-03-20 22:03, Roger Blake wrote: >> On 2023-03-16, TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> wrote: >>> Adobe Reader DC, for use with New York State income tax forms. Nothing >>> else, I mean NOTHING, even other Windows pdf readers, will do for them. >> >> Will an earlier version of the Adobe reader work? Adobe Reader 9 will >> run natively on Linux. (I have it installed on Mint 21.) >> > Not the way it's designed to work it. When they first came out with > these forms you needed Adobe Reader 10 to be able to save the entries on > these forms. Earlier versions would let you fill the fields in, but you > had to do everything in one session, and print to pdf or use a scanner > to get an electronic copy. > > At that time they still had a plain paper form available, but you had to > fill it in manually. I just discovered that the "plain" paper form is > now "fill-in" like the IRS forms, but still doesn't have the extra > features that the other form has. That means that if you file THAT form, > it will go to the bottom of the State's pile for extra scrutiny, which > will be the last they get to, after those that filed online, and after > those that use the fancier paper form, and will delay any refund I might > have coming for several weeks. > > This year's refund arrived less than a month after I filed the paper > form. I'm OK with that, even if I had to use Windows. "Maybe" it works on Android :-? -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-21 18:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nEmSL.1122015$gGD7.962565@fx11.iad> |
| In reply to | #37574 |
On 2023-03-21, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > On 2023-03-21 15:22, TJ wrote: > >> This year's refund arrived less than a month after I filed the paper >> form. I'm OK with that, even if I had to use Windows. > > "Maybe" it works on Android :-? Great - substitute one monopoly for another. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | You can't save the earth \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | unless you're willing to X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | make other people sacrifice. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Dogbert the green consultant
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-21 21:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <s4gpejx7u8.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #37578 |
On 2023-03-21 19:25, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2023-03-21, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >> On 2023-03-21 15:22, TJ wrote: >> >>> This year's refund arrived less than a month after I filed the paper >>> form. I'm OK with that, even if I had to use Windows. >> >> "Maybe" it works on Android :-? > > Great - substitute one monopoly for another. Sure. But one is gratis and the other isn't. I use phones, and they are Android, so I already have Android (I'm not going to use iphones). And can be installed in a virtual machine. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "27E.G756" <27E.G756@noq24u.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-26 23:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <m9qcnYNdtd4kkbz5nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #37581 |
On 3/21/23 4:20 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2023-03-21 19:25, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> On 2023-03-21, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 2023-03-21 15:22, TJ wrote: >>> >>>> This year's refund arrived less than a month after I filed the paper >>>> form. I'm OK with that, even if I had to use Windows. >>> >>> "Maybe" it works on Android :-? >> >> Great - substitute one monopoly for another. > > Sure. But one is gratis and the other isn't. I use phones, and they are > Android, so I already have Android (I'm not going to use iphones). And > can be installed in a virtual machine. I some Banana Pi's come with Android installed on the EMC chip. But how to boot it involves some complicated instructions. The one Banana I have, I wanted to boot Raspbian, so I wiped the EMC chip. Don't feel compelled to run Android - it's kind of a brain-damaged Linux ... really ONLY meant for phones or similar devices.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-27 11:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ba58fjx284.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #37661 |
On 2023-03-27 05:25, 27E.G756 wrote: > On 3/21/23 4:20 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2023-03-21 19:25, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>> On 2023-03-21, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2023-03-21 15:22, TJ wrote: >>>> >>>>> This year's refund arrived less than a month after I filed the paper >>>>> form. I'm OK with that, even if I had to use Windows. >>>> >>>> "Maybe" it works on Android :-? >>> >>> Great - substitute one monopoly for another. >> >> Sure. But one is gratis and the other isn't. I use phones, and they >> are Android, so I already have Android (I'm not going to use iphones). >> And can be installed in a virtual machine. > > I some Banana Pi's come with Android installed > on the EMC chip. But how to boot it involves some > complicated instructions. The one Banana I have, I > wanted to boot Raspbian, so I wiped the EMC chip. > Don't feel compelled to run Android - it's kind of > a brain-damaged Linux ... really ONLY meant for > phones or similar devices. My interest in running Android in a virtual machine was precisely to have Adobe Reader on the (Linux) computer. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "27E.G756" <27E.G756@noq24u.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-28 23:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <b2OdnZLigIqXN775nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #37665 |
On 3/27/23 5:47 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2023-03-27 05:25, 27E.G756 wrote: >> On 3/21/23 4:20 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2023-03-21 19:25, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >>>> On 2023-03-21, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2023-03-21 15:22, TJ wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> This year's refund arrived less than a month after I filed the paper >>>>>> form. I'm OK with that, even if I had to use Windows. >>>>> >>>>> "Maybe" it works on Android :-? >>>> >>>> Great - substitute one monopoly for another. >>> >>> Sure. But one is gratis and the other isn't. I use phones, and they >>> are Android, so I already have Android (I'm not going to use >>> iphones). And can be installed in a virtual machine. >> >> I some Banana Pi's come with Android installed >> on the EMC chip. But how to boot it involves some >> complicated instructions. The one Banana I have, I >> wanted to boot Raspbian, so I wiped the EMC chip. >> Don't feel compelled to run Android - it's kind of >> a brain-damaged Linux ... really ONLY meant for >> phones or similar devices. > > > My interest in running Android in a virtual machine was precisely to > have Adobe Reader on the (Linux) computer. Hmmmm ... but is it a "linux computer" if it's running Android ??? :-) Android is hacked-down -ix, not as versatile as real -ix (but it looks attractive/friendly). I've not checked lately - will VirtualBox run Android ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-29 16:43 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <6423de2a@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #37693 |
27E.G756 <27E.G756@noq24u.net> wrote: > On 3/27/23 5:47 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> >> My interest in running Android in a virtual machine was precisely to >> have Adobe Reader on the (Linux) computer. > > Hmmmm ... but is it a "linux computer" if it's running > Android ??? :-) > > Android is hacked-down -ix, not as versatile as real -ix > (but it looks attractive/friendly). > > I've not checked lately - will VirtualBox run Android ? VirtualBox isn't an emulator, so it will only run x86_64-compatible software. Android no longer officially supports x86_64, so VirtualBox is no good for it. Except there's the Android-x86 project: https://www.android-x86.org/ But they're only doing source code releases now, and I presume most Android 'apps' won't run on it. I looked into all this for testing web pages in smartphone browsers without needing to buy a smartphone, but it seemed like too much work (and likely frustration). -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "22T.R732" <22TR732@noq24u.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-30 21:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qFydnUrVBbrep7v5nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #37695 |
On 3/29/23 2:43 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > 27E.G756 <27E.G756@noq24u.net> wrote: >> On 3/27/23 5:47 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> >>> My interest in running Android in a virtual machine was precisely to >>> have Adobe Reader on the (Linux) computer. >> >> Hmmmm ... but is it a "linux computer" if it's running >> Android ??? :-) >> >> Android is hacked-down -ix, not as versatile as real -ix >> (but it looks attractive/friendly). >> >> I've not checked lately - will VirtualBox run Android ? > > VirtualBox isn't an emulator, so it will only run x86_64-compatible > software. Android no longer officially supports x86_64, so > VirtualBox is no good for it. Except there's the Android-x86 > project: > https://www.android-x86.org/ Well, we have to wait for an X86 version then ... Hmm ... there ARE actual emulators ... maybe Android will run on an emulated ARM machine ? I know it will run on actual ARM machines ... OK ... you run it on a Pi and bring that up over VNC so it SEEMS to be running on your desktop :-) > But they're only doing source code releases now, and I presume > most Android 'apps' won't run on it. > I looked into all this for testing web pages in smartphone browsers > without needing to buy a smartphone, but it seemed like too much > work (and likely frustration). >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-21 10:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tvcg11$56n6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37561 |
On 2023-03-20 22:03, Roger Blake wrote: > On 2023-03-16, TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> wrote: >> Adobe Reader DC, for use with New York State income tax forms. Nothing >> else, I mean NOTHING, even other Windows pdf readers, will do for them. > > Will an earlier version of the Adobe reader work? Adobe Reader 9 will > run natively on Linux. (I have it installed on Mint 21.) > I quit using Acroread 9 on Linux many years ago. Too buggy, too many security holes in such old software. Even Windows 7, as long as I use it as a VirtualBox guest, is more secure. I'm using Mageia's "Cauldron" (beta development version of Mageia 9), and I don't know if that old version of Acroread would even install, nor do I care to find out. TJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-07 09:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vv7jdjx518.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #37452 |
On 2023-03-07 02:11, Bobbie Sellers wrote: > On 3/6/23 16:36, pH wrote: >> On 2023-03-06, Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote: >>> Am 06.03.2023 um 18:13:14 Uhr schrieb pH: >>> >>>> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/03/unkillable-uefi-malware-bypassing-secure-boot-enabled-by-unpatchable-windows-flaw/ >>>> >>>> I'm not up on my acronyms, but I've seen uefi mentioned here at times. >>>> >>>> I'm assuming since this runs first, Linux is therefore not immune to >>>> this malware. >>>> >>>> Would a workaround be enabling legacy boot and running an older distro >>>> until...well, I'll wait for any comments from you smarter guys out >>>> there. >>> >>> No, classic BIOS boot (called CSM/legacy when UEFI firmware is being >>> used) doesn't contain SecureBoot at all. If a software can change the >>> boot loader, it can infect every system. >>> >>> Also attacks on the firmware directly are still possible, just like a >>> normal BIOS/UEFI firmware update. >>> >> >> OKay, thanks for the comments. >> >> I'm gathering that secure boot is actually a *good* thing and not just >> some >> microsoft introduction. >> >> Since I install so seldom I'm really not up on these things. >> >> pH > Secure Boot is not a good thing but a Microsoft attempt to satisfy > it's corporate customers and to lock out the possibility of > using Linux on a Windows machine. There are further attempts to > foreclose the possibility of using a secure OS on machines installed > with Windows. In corporate circumstances it locks down the systems > against unauthorized intrusions by any but the assigned IP technicians. > Just to point out than many corporate users will learn enough to turn > it off but it does provide a little security. > > When installing Linux to a machine with the Secure Boot enabled > most of us disable it. Some few Linux systems have paid the toll to > Microsoft and gotten a key which will satisfy the Secure Boot system. > When using Windows and any Linux system on the same hardware you must > be aware that Windows without warnings sends new kernels to the system > and when that happens the previous boot setting are over-written messing > up the Linux boot as well. You will need a Live Linux Distribution to > fix the broken boot syste. Hasn't ever happened to me. I only heard some histories, long ago, of some vendors, not Microsoft, selling machines with incorrect firmware that would not allow different installs. Same as there are (were?) motherboards that are designed incompatible with Linux. This is just paranoia. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-07 13:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op.11f6ycmaa3w0dxdave@hodgins.homeip.net> |
| In reply to | #37460 |
On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 03:07:59 -0500, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > I only heard some histories, long ago, of some vendors, not Microsoft, > selling machines with incorrect firmware that would not allow different > installs. > Same as there are (were?) motherboards that are designed incompatible > with Linux. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/01/microsoft-mandating-secure-boot-on-arm-making-linux-installs-difficult/ Also on x86 systems, having the ability to turn off secure boot is up to the uefi firmware developers, so may or may not work on a given system. Configuration screens for uefi vary widely among and even with versions of different vendor's firmware in terms of organization and terminology. M$ can't ban other operating systems, but they do as much as they think they can get away with to make it more difficult. Having a mini-os that you don't control that has full control of the hardware drastically increases the attack surface for adversaries. It makes it easier for them to make intrusions persistent, and harder to detect. Regards, Dave Hodgins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-07 19:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tu7uli$gd3a$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37468 |
Am 07.03.2023 um 13:00:02 Uhr schrieb David W. Hodgins: > Having a mini-os that you don't control that has full control of the > hardware drastically increases the attack surface for adversaries. It > makes it easier for them to make intrusions persistent, and harder to > detect. True - but that already existed in the BIOS times with Intels Management Engine (ME).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-07 14:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op.11gcb6q3a3w0dxdave@hodgins.homeip.net> |
| In reply to | #37471 |
On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 13:09:54 -0500, Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote: > Am 07.03.2023 um 13:00:02 Uhr schrieb David W. Hodgins: > >> Having a mini-os that you don't control that has full control of the >> hardware drastically increases the attack surface for adversaries. It >> makes it easier for them to make intrusions persistent, and harder to >> detect. > > True - but that already existed in the BIOS times with Intels > Management Engine (ME). That's true, but was easier to avoid or fully disable. With uefi, it can't be fully disabled. The uefi firmware always has full control before the os loads. The legacy boot options only emulate the bios firmware interface. They don't stop uefi from being in control of the hardware. Regards, Dave Hodgins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-07 19:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tu7uke$gd3a$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37460 |
Am 07.03.2023 um 09:07:59 Uhr schrieb Carlos E.R.: > I only heard some histories, long ago, of some vendors, not > Microsoft, selling machines with incorrect firmware that would not > allow different installs. > > Same as there are (were?) motherboards that are designed incompatible > with Linux. Acer and Medion were candidates where GNU/Linux installation with LILO/GRUB was difficult, but still possible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "28B.I874" <28B.I874@noabzba.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-07 21:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1ZKdnSLOSa7gaJr5nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #37470 |
On 3/7/23 1:09 PM, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 07.03.2023 um 09:07:59 Uhr schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>
>> I only heard some histories, long ago, of some vendors, not
>> Microsoft, selling machines with incorrect firmware that would not
>> allow different installs.
>>
>> Same as there are (were?) motherboards that are designed incompatible
>> with Linux.
>
> Acer and Medion were candidates where GNU/Linux installation with
> LILO/GRUB was difficult, but still possible.
Note that if it's difficult ENOUGH then Linux/UNIX gets
relegated to a crusty few - of no interest to anyone
else, not used by anyone else either. It becomes a
"hobby" OS only, no relevance in the world. Development
pretty much ends. This is the M$/Apple DREAM - total
uncontested world dominance, all profits for THEM only.
Then they'll boost the OS cost to a few kilobucks up
front, and you can't even buy it, just "lease" it.
Every update, every hour, more $$$ too. Pay-per-View,
kinda back to the old terminals/server model. TELL
me the giant push for Online-Only primary apps isn't
exactly that.
M$ owns enough Apple stock, and vice-versa, so it barely
even matters which you buy, they both make money.
Yea, yea, IBM will have it's own Linux/UNIX-ish OS for
their big hardware - but YOU ain't gonna be buying those
mainframes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-07 22:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op.11gxkslqa3w0dxdave@hodgins.homeip.net> |
| In reply to | #37479 |
On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 21:39:38 -0500, 28B.I874 <28B.I874@noabzba.net> wrote: > Note that if it's difficult ENOUGH then Linux/UNIX gets > relegated to a crusty few - of no interest to anyone > else, not used by anyone else either. It becomes a > "hobby" OS only, no relevance in the world. Development > pretty much ends. This is the M$/Apple DREAM - total > uncontested world dominance, all profits for THEM only. Community based linux distributions don't need to satisfy anyone that doesn't contribute in one way or another to it's creation and maintenance, and the friends and/or family members they want it for. By contribute, I'm including both those who donate their time, and those who donate money to pay for the infrastructure. While those distributions do welcome additional users, they don't need them for the distribution to survive. Market share doesn't matter for the non-commercial distributions. For the commercial distributions they only need enough companies or people willing to pay for their support services to keep their shareholders satisfied and the bills/staff paid. Anything beyond that is just extra money for the shareholders, or employees who's pay depends on revenue. Regards, Dave Hodgins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "28B.I874" <28B.I874@noabzba.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-08 01:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d1CdnV08JcX6tpX5nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #37481 |
On 3/7/23 10:35 PM, David W. Hodgins wrote: > On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 21:39:38 -0500, 28B.I874 <28B.I874@noabzba.net> wrote: >> Note that if it's difficult ENOUGH then Linux/UNIX gets >> relegated to a crusty few - of no interest to anyone >> else, not used by anyone else either. It becomes a >> "hobby" OS only, no relevance in the world. Development >> pretty much ends. This is the M$/Apple DREAM - total >> uncontested world dominance, all profits for THEM only. > > Community based linux distributions don't need to satisfy anyone that > doesn't > contribute in one way or another to it's creation and maintenance, and the > friends and/or family members they want it for. By contribute, I'm > including > both those who donate their time, and those who donate money to pay for the > infrastructure. While those distributions do welcome additional users, > they don't > need them for the distribution to survive. You don't seem to get it ... severe Linux lock-outs by MB makers means NO LINUX/BSD for any and all effective purposes. These systems may be "free" but they are NOT intended to be "hobby" systems, they are meant to DO WORK, people volunteer to put in LOTS of effort. If that is removed then nobody but nobody will bother to contribute anymore. Why waste the effort ? It'd be like spending lots of time writing CP/M apps ....... > Market share doesn't matter for the non-commercial distributions. Yes, it does - indirectly. Contributors DO like to think their efforts are being USEFUL in the larger sense. If that ceases their INTEREST ceases as well. It's a psychological thing. > For the > commercial distributions they only need enough companies or people > willing to > pay for their support services to keep their shareholders satisfied and the > bills/staff paid. Anything beyond that is just extra money for the > shareholders, > or employees who's pay depends on revenue. "Commercial" is less of a thing - for the elite few. Now that IBM has absorbed RHEL, well, RHEL will likely survive ... but increasingly for JUST the wealthy corps running Big Iron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-03-08 01:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op.11g6iir8a3w0dxdave@hodgins.homeip.net> |
| In reply to | #37486 |
On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 01:29:58 -0500, 28B.I874 <28B.I874@noabzba.net> wrote: > You don't seem to get it ... severe Linux lock-outs by > MB makers means NO LINUX/BSD for any and all effective > purposes. > > These systems may be "free" but they are NOT intended to > be "hobby" systems, they are meant to DO WORK, people > volunteer to put in LOTS of effort. If that is removed then > nobody but nobody will bother to contribute anymore. > Why waste the effort ? It'd be like spending lots of > time writing CP/M apps ....... Even m$ needs linux now, as their own software is not secure enough for their servers. >> Market share doesn't matter for the non-commercial distributions. > > Yes, it does - indirectly. Contributors DO like to think > their efforts are being USEFUL in the larger sense. If > that ceases their INTEREST ceases as well. It's a > psychological thing. That's why I include the friends and family of linux contributors. The people they care about. Those are the only users who truly matter to the contributors (as well as themselves of course). I agree people need to feel their work is appreciated, but it doesn't necessarily have to be by the general public. >> For the >> commercial distributions they only need enough companies or people >> willing to >> pay for their support services to keep their shareholders satisfied and the >> bills/staff paid. Anything beyond that is just extra money for the >> shareholders, >> or employees who's pay depends on revenue. > > "Commercial" is less of a thing - for the elite few. > > Now that IBM has absorbed RHEL, well, RHEL will likely > survive ... but increasingly for JUST the wealthy corps > running Big Iron. They find it useful to have people test the software they produce before the issue it or updates for it to their staff. That's why Fedora exists. Regards, Dave Hodgins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web