Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #37058 > unrolled thread

Use GParted to make bootable USB

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Use GParted to make bootable USB vjp2.at@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com - 2023-02-15 21:58 +0000
    Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-02-15 23:01 +0100
    Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2023-02-15 22:11 +0000
      Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2023-02-15 16:34 -0800
      Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2023-02-16 10:59 +0200
    Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-02-15 20:11 -0500
    Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB "25B.R866" <25B.R866@noaaba.net> - 2023-02-18 03:38 -0500
      Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-18 09:59 +0000
        Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB "25B.R866" <25B.R866@noaaba.net> - 2023-02-18 22:04 -0500
          Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2023-02-18 23:34 -0500
          Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-19 11:25 +0000
            Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-02-19 12:50 +0100
              Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-19 14:30 +0000
      Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-02-18 12:29 +0100
        Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB "25B.R866" <25B.R866@noaaba.net> - 2023-02-18 22:15 -0500
      Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-18 14:21 +0000
        Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB "25B.R866" <25B.R866@noaaba.net> - 2023-02-18 22:24 -0500
          Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-02-19 12:26 +0100
          Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-19 14:21 +0000
            Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB "25B.E866" <25B.E866@noaaba.net> - 2023-02-20 21:53 -0500
              Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-21 08:39 +0000
                Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-21 10:53 +0000
                  Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-21 11:42 +0000
                    Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB "25B.E866" <25B.E866@noaaba.net> - 2023-02-22 01:08 -0500
                  Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB "25B.E866" <25B.E866@noaaba.net> - 2023-02-22 01:38 -0500
                    Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-02-23 12:15 +0100
                      Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-23 13:16 +0000
                        Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB "25B.E866" <25B.E866@noaaba.net> - 2023-02-23 21:27 -0500
                          Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-24 09:20 +0000
                          Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2023-02-24 14:03 +0100
              Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-21 10:38 +0000
                Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2023-02-21 19:12 +0000
                  Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-22 13:26 +0000
          Re: Use GParted to make bootable USB Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2023-02-21 22:30 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#37203

"25B.E866" <25B.E866@noaaba.net> writes:
> On 2/19/23 9:21 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> "25B.R866" <25B.R866@noaaba.net> writes:
>>> On 2/18/23 9:21 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>> "25B.R866" <25B.R866@noaaba.net> writes:
>>>>>     Most modern bootable USBs also incorporate
>>>>>     a UEFI (a M$ abomination) partition a the
>>>>>     very start. You, kinda, CAN fake that with
>>>>>     gparted - create a FAT-32 part at the very
>>>>>     beginning, but it's not guarenteed to work
>>>>>     since special code needs to be loaded INTO
>>>>>     the little partition.
>>>> It’s an industry-wide design, not unique to Microsoft.
>>>    But it was a M$-driven PLOT - mostly to hurt Linux.
>> The chip on your shoulder is obscuring your view.
>
>   Ummmm ... not so SURE about that !  :-)

Well, it’s been more than a decade and here I am with Linux on multiple
hosts with secure boot enabled. When is this supposed plot going to pay
off?

>   Keep an eye on the evolution of "secure boot"
>   setups too - M$ is in a position to decree that
>   Linux is 'insecure' and most board/bios makers
>   will follow them, not even let Linux boot - no
>   M$ signature, no go, no way around. That's the
>   future I see .....

That hypothetical requires a lot of organisations to leave an awful lot
of money on the table.

* Microsoft lose more than half their cloud service (the fastest-growing
  part of their business).

* Any board manufacturer stupid enough to go along with it loses
  somewhere around half their server business.  The rest get dollar
  signs in their eyes as they pick up the impacted customers.

* Competition authorities round the world start fining every business
  responsible.

>   Gates and friends left the "computing/systems
>   for all" way of thinking LONG ago.

Gates isn’t running MS, which has changed considerably since the 1990s.

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37205

On 21/02/2023 08:39, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> "25B.E866" <25B.E866@noaaba.net> writes:
>> On 2/19/23 9:21 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> "25B.R866" <25B.R866@noaaba.net> writes:
>>>> On 2/18/23 9:21 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>> "25B.R866" <25B.R866@noaaba.net> writes:
>>>>>>      Most modern bootable USBs also incorporate
>>>>>>      a UEFI (a M$ abomination) partition a the
>>>>>>      very start. You, kinda, CAN fake that with
>>>>>>      gparted - create a FAT-32 part at the very
>>>>>>      beginning, but it's not guarenteed to work
>>>>>>      since special code needs to be loaded INTO
>>>>>>      the little partition.
>>>>> It’s an industry-wide design, not unique to Microsoft.
>>>>     But it was a M$-driven PLOT - mostly to hurt Linux.
>>> The chip on your shoulder is obscuring your view.
>>
>>    Ummmm ... not so SURE about that !  :-)
> 
> Well, it’s been more than a decade and here I am with Linux on multiple
> hosts with secure boot enabled. When is this supposed plot going to pay
> off?
> 
>>    Keep an eye on the evolution of "secure boot"
>>    setups too - M$ is in a position to decree that
>>    Linux is 'insecure' and most board/bios makers
>>    will follow them, not even let Linux boot - no
>>    M$ signature, no go, no way around. That's the
>>    future I see .....
> 
> That hypothetical requires a lot of organisations to leave an awful lot
> of money on the table.
> 
> * Microsoft lose more than half their cloud service (the fastest-growing
>    part of their business).
> 
> * Any board manufacturer stupid enough to go along with it loses
>    somewhere around half their server business.  The rest get dollar
>    signs in their eyes as they pick up the impacted customers.
> 
> * Competition authorities round the world start fining every business
>    responsible.
> 
>>    Gates and friends left the "computing/systems
>>    for all" way of thinking LONG ago.
> 
> Gates isn’t running MS, which has changed considerably since the 1990s.
> 

I think so. Basically what seems to be happening from my rather detached 
perspective these days, is that the further down the users  IQ scale you 
go, the more IT is geared towards (someone else's) cloud operation and 
touch screen / audio command driven devices.

There simply isn't  that much money in desktop systems any more, and 
indeed there  is some doubt that the main office productivity stuff - 
writing and printing paper - actually needs be done on a traditional PC 
at all.

Arguably the money is in cloud *services* and web or at least internet 
based apps running on whatever is appropriate.

Since a web browser is a fairly ubiquitous input device, corporates can 
build their own, or outsource their own, cloud, and leave the employees 
using whatever works on their (increasingly at home) desktops.

There simply isn't/wont be the money in a windows desktop any more.
Servers are where its at and JavaScript and Java style distributed apps.

Only highly technical programs like CAD CAM  or creative suites like 
Adobe whatever still need a desktop style OS, and this is a limited market.

Home PCS are over. Its a tablet or a games console.
Office PCS are largely over. As is the office itself.

MSDROSS never worked well as a server anyway..

So Microsoft has to undergo the sort of transformation that IBM did when 
it realised that operating systems and hardware cost money but what made 
money was software, training and support.

My bet is that Windows will in the end be just another Linux distro with 
legacy library hooks to run Winders apps.

-- 
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37209

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
> On 21/02/2023 08:39, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> Gates isn’t running MS, which has changed considerably since the
>> 1990s.
>
> I think so. Basically what seems to be happening from my rather
> detached perspective these days, is that the further down the users
> IQ scale you go, the more IT is geared towards (someone else's) cloud
> operation and touch screen / audio command driven devices.

It’s not limited to the non-techy end of things; there’s a lot of
as-a-service software dev support out there. GitHub is perhaps the most
famous (oh look, Microsoft again) but it’s not the only one.

> There simply isn't  that much money in desktop systems any more, and
> indeed there  is some doubt that the main office productivity stuff - 
> writing and printing paper - actually needs be done on a traditional
> PC at all.
>
> Arguably the money is in cloud *services* and web or at least internet
> based apps running on whatever is appropriate.

Shifting spreadsheets and the other non-techy tools to a shared-editing
model (which in practice mostly means SaaS and cloud provision) is a big
win for collaboration and lightweight process within an organization.

> My bet is that Windows will in the end be just another Linux distro
> with legacy library hooks to run Winders apps.

People have said that before but it would be a huge amount of work
compared to just keeping Windows going in its current form. I don’t
think it’ll happen.

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37216

On 2/21/23 6:42 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> On 21/02/2023 08:39, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> Gates isn’t running MS, which has changed considerably since the
>>> 1990s.
>>
>> I think so. Basically what seems to be happening from my rather
>> detached perspective these days, is that the further down the users
>> IQ scale you go, the more IT is geared towards (someone else's) cloud
>> operation and touch screen / audio command driven devices.
> 
> It’s not limited to the non-techy end of things; there’s a lot of
> as-a-service software dev support out there. GitHub is perhaps the most
> famous (oh look, Microsoft again) but it’s not the only one.
> 
>> There simply isn't  that much money in desktop systems any more, and
>> indeed there  is some doubt that the main office productivity stuff -
>> writing and printing paper - actually needs be done on a traditional
>> PC at all.
>>
>> Arguably the money is in cloud *services* and web or at least internet
>> based apps running on whatever is appropriate.
> 
> Shifting spreadsheets and the other non-techy tools to a shared-editing
> model (which in practice mostly means SaaS and cloud provision) is a big
> win for collaboration and lightweight process within an organization.
> 
>> My bet is that Windows will in the end be just another Linux distro
>> with legacy library hooks to run Winders apps.
> 
> People have said that before but it would be a huge amount of work
> compared to just keeping Windows going in its current form. I don’t
> think it’ll happen.


   I think, like Apple, they'll just HAVE to drift
   in that direction. Winders is now a bowl of
   spaghetti that's been put in a clothes-dryer
   on top of being insanely vulnerable to every
   script-kiddie hacker in the known universe.

   But the change won't be overnight. They'll keep
   replacing BITS with unix-style code until, in
   the end, it's a proprietary Unix that still has
   the 'look-n-feel' of Winders at many levels.

   "Cloud" does have its place, but be *careful*

   "Collaborative" software is interesting (though
   think-out the file/record access/permissions
   mess a bit - not much 'clean' there  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37219

On 2/21/23 5:53 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 21/02/2023 08:39, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> "25B.E866" <25B.E866@noaaba.net> writes:
>>> On 2/19/23 9:21 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>> "25B.R866" <25B.R866@noaaba.net> writes:
>>>>> On 2/18/23 9:21 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>>> "25B.R866" <25B.R866@noaaba.net> writes:
>>>>>>>      Most modern bootable USBs also incorporate
>>>>>>>      a UEFI (a M$ abomination) partition a the
>>>>>>>      very start. You, kinda, CAN fake that with
>>>>>>>      gparted - create a FAT-32 part at the very
>>>>>>>      beginning, but it's not guarenteed to work
>>>>>>>      since special code needs to be loaded INTO
>>>>>>>      the little partition.
>>>>>> It’s an industry-wide design, not unique to Microsoft.
>>>>>     But it was a M$-driven PLOT - mostly to hurt Linux.
>>>> The chip on your shoulder is obscuring your view.
>>>
>>>    Ummmm ... not so SURE about that !  :-)
>>
>> Well, it’s been more than a decade and here I am with Linux on multiple
>> hosts with secure boot enabled. When is this supposed plot going to pay
>> off?


   When they WANT it to !  :-)

   WHY do all boards have UEFI and "secure boot" and
   such these days - when it all worked perfectly
   well before ? Because M$ *told* them to. If M$
   wants it - they GET it. Their history DOES suggest
   evil intents .........


>>>    Keep an eye on the evolution of "secure boot"
>>>    setups too - M$ is in a position to decree that
>>>    Linux is 'insecure' and most board/bios makers
>>>    will follow them, not even let Linux boot - no
>>>    M$ signature, no go, no way around. That's the
>>>    future I see .....
>>
>> That hypothetical requires a lot of organisations to leave an awful lot
>> of money on the table.


   M$ has *vast* amounts of money and lawyers and the
   gravity of its user base .......


>> * Microsoft lose more than half their cloud service (the fastest-growing
>>    part of their business).


   Even rich companies can screw up ...


>> * Any board manufacturer stupid enough to go along with it loses
>>    somewhere around half their server business.  The rest get dollar
>>    signs in their eyes as they pick up the impacted customers.
>>
>> * Competition authorities round the world start fining every business
>>    responsible.
>>
>>>    Gates and friends left the "computing/systems
>>>    for all" way of thinking LONG ago.
>>
>> Gates isn’t running MS, which has changed considerably since the 1990s.
>>
> 
> I think so. Basically what seems to be happening from my rather detached 
> perspective these days, is that the further down the users  IQ scale you 
> go, the more IT is geared towards (someone else's) cloud operation and 
> touch screen / audio command driven devices.


   That's where the money is - kind of a return to the
   old client/server model where they can BILL per-unit
   of whatever you consume. Most people never even think
   about it - just goes on their credit card. Check out
   the latest figures for CC debt though ..... a looming
   disaster ............


> There simply isn't  that much money in desktop systems any more, and 
> indeed there  is some doubt that the main office productivity stuff - 
> writing and printing paper - actually needs be done on a traditional PC 
> at all.
> 
> Arguably the money is in cloud *services* and web or at least internet 
> based apps running on whatever is appropriate.
> 
> Since a web browser is a fairly ubiquitous input device, corporates can 
> build their own, or outsource their own, cloud, and leave the employees 
> using whatever works on their (increasingly at home) desktops.
> 
> There simply isn't/wont be the money in a windows desktop any more.
> Servers are where its at and JavaScript and Java style distributed apps.
> 
> Only highly technical programs like CAD CAM  or creative suites like 
> Adobe whatever still need a desktop style OS, and this is a limited market.
> 
> Home PCS are over. Its a tablet or a games console.
> Office PCS are largely over. As is the office itself.

   Um ... I'd kinda disagree there. Offices are making
   a post-covid return now and tiny little phones/tablets
   are NOT a substitute for a desktop with 32-inch screens.


> MSDROSS never worked well as a server anyway..
> 
> So Microsoft has to undergo the sort of transformation that IBM did when 
> it realised that operating systems and hardware cost money but what made 
> money was software, training and support.

   IBM still sells mainframes - AND the support for them.
   What's "old" often STILL has a niche.

> My bet is that Windows will in the end be just another Linux distro with 
> legacy library hooks to run Winders apps.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37244

On 2023-02-22 07:38, 25B.E866 wrote:
> On 2/21/23 5:53 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 21/02/2023 08:39, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> "25B.E866" <25B.E866@noaaba.net> writes:
>>>> On 2/19/23 9:21 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>> "25B.R866" <25B.R866@noaaba.net> writes:
>>>>>> On 2/18/23 9:21 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>>>> "25B.R866" <25B.R866@noaaba.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>      Most modern bootable USBs also incorporate
>>>>>>>>      a UEFI (a M$ abomination) partition a the
>>>>>>>>      very start. You, kinda, CAN fake that with
>>>>>>>>      gparted - create a FAT-32 part at the very
>>>>>>>>      beginning, but it's not guarenteed to work
>>>>>>>>      since special code needs to be loaded INTO
>>>>>>>>      the little partition.
>>>>>>> It’s an industry-wide design, not unique to Microsoft.
>>>>>>     But it was a M$-driven PLOT - mostly to hurt Linux.
>>>>> The chip on your shoulder is obscuring your view.
>>>>
>>>>    Ummmm ... not so SURE about that !  :-)
>>>
>>> Well, it’s been more than a decade and here I am with Linux on multiple
>>> hosts with secure boot enabled. When is this supposed plot going to pay
>>> off?
> 
> 
>    When they WANT it to !  :-)
> 
>    WHY do all boards have UEFI and "secure boot" and
>    such these days - when it all worked perfectly
>    well before ? Because M$ *told* them to. If M$
>    wants it - they GET it. Their history DOES suggest
>    evil intents .........


No, it hasn't.

There were vulnerabilities out there, exploited, perverting the boot 
process. Specially on corporate environments. They also need methods 
blocking employees from booting anything else but the provided by their 
IT department software.

I will not say that UEFI and secure boot solve the issue. I do not know. 
But it is the right direction.

And in fact UEFI makes multibooting easier.

And no, M$ can not block other oses. Not in Europe, at least. It may 
happen in a particular computer make, so just buy a different one.


...
-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37245

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
> On 2023-02-22 07:38, 25B.E866 wrote:
>>    WHY do all boards have UEFI and "secure boot" and
>>    such these days - when it all worked perfectly
>>    well before ? Because M$ *told* them to. If M$
>>    wants it - they GET it. Their history DOES suggest
>>    evil intents .........
>
>
> No, it hasn't.
>
> There were vulnerabilities out there, exploited, perverting the boot
> process. Specially on corporate environments. They also need methods 
> blocking employees from booting anything else but the provided by
> their IT department software.

Quite. Boot sectors viruses used to be ubiquitous.

> I will not say that UEFI and secure boot solve the issue. I do not
> know. But it is the right direction.

Yes. It’s 

> And in fact UEFI makes multibooting easier.
>
> And no, M$ can not block other oses. Not in Europe, at least. It may
> happen in a particular computer make, so just buy a different one.

Indeed they cooperate in booting non-MS operating systems. Guess who
signed the UEFI shim used to boot Linux securely.

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37249

On 2/23/23 8:16 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>> On 2023-02-22 07:38, 25B.E866 wrote:
>>>     WHY do all boards have UEFI and "secure boot" and
>>>     such these days - when it all worked perfectly
>>>     well before ? Because M$ *told* them to. If M$
>>>     wants it - they GET it. Their history DOES suggest
>>>     evil intents .........
>>
>>
>> No, it hasn't.
>>
>> There were vulnerabilities out there, exploited, perverting the boot
>> process. Specially on corporate environments. They also need methods
>> blocking employees from booting anything else but the provided by
>> their IT department software.
> 
> Quite. Boot sectors viruses used to be ubiquitous.


   And they went away long before UEFI/secure-boot - because
   they were easy to detect/exterminate.



>> I will not say that UEFI and secure boot solve the issue. I do not
>> know. But it is the right direction.
> 
> Yes. It’s
> 
>> And in fact UEFI makes multibooting easier.
>>
>> And no, M$ can not block other oses. Not in Europe, at least. It may
>> happen in a particular computer make, so just buy a different one.

   What about everybody NOT in Europe ???

   And, as we've seen, M$ has the leverage/gravity to
   induce board/bios makers cater to its whims.

> Indeed they cooperate in booting non-MS operating systems. Guess who
> signed the UEFI shim used to boot Linux securely.

   And when they stop signing it ?

   Sorry, M$ went evil a long time ago. Expect
   the worst.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37252

"25B.E866" <25B.E866@noaaba.net> writes:
> On 2/23/23 8:16 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>>> And no, M$ can not block other oses. Not in Europe, at least. It may
>>> happen in a particular computer make, so just buy a different one.
>
>   What about everybody NOT in Europe ???
>
>   And, as we've seen, M$ has the leverage/gravity to
>   induce board/bios makers cater to its whims.

See other post.

>> Indeed they cooperate in booting non-MS operating systems. Guess who
>> signed the UEFI shim used to boot Linux securely.
>
>   And when they stop signing it ?

Then you install your own keys, or turn off secure boot entirely.

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37253

On 2023-02-24 03:27, 25B.E866 wrote:
> On 2/23/23 8:16 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>>> On 2023-02-22 07:38, 25B.E866 wrote:
>>>>     WHY do all boards have UEFI and "secure boot" and
>>>>     such these days - when it all worked perfectly
>>>>     well before ? Because M$ *told* them to. If M$
>>>>     wants it - they GET it. Their history DOES suggest
>>>>     evil intents .........
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it hasn't.
>>>
>>> There were vulnerabilities out there, exploited, perverting the boot
>>> process. Specially on corporate environments. They also need methods
>>> blocking employees from booting anything else but the provided by
>>> their IT department software.
>>
>> Quite. Boot sectors viruses used to be ubiquitous.
> 
> 
>    And they went away long before UEFI/secure-boot - because
>    they were easy to detect/exterminate.

Not really, they are used to subvert corporate machines.

> 
> 
> 
>>> I will not say that UEFI and secure boot solve the issue. I do not
>>> know. But it is the right direction.
>>
>> Yes. It’s
>>
>>> And in fact UEFI makes multibooting easier.
>>>
>>> And no, M$ can not block other oses. Not in Europe, at least. It may
>>> happen in a particular computer make, so just buy a different one.
> 
>    What about everybody NOT in Europe ???
> 
>    And, as we've seen, M$ has the leverage/gravity to
>    induce board/bios makers cater to its whims.
> 
>> Indeed they cooperate in booting non-MS operating systems. Guess who
>> signed the UEFI shim used to boot Linux securely.
> 
>    And when they stop signing it ?
> 
>    Sorry, M$ went evil a long time ago. Expect
>    the worst.


Then roll your own key.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37204

On 21/02/2023 02:53, 25B.E866 wrote:
> On 2/19/23 9:21 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> "25B.R866" <25B.R866@noaaba.net> writes:
>>> On 2/18/23 9:21 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>> "25B.R866" <25B.R866@noaaba.net> writes:
>>>>>     Most modern bootable USBs also incorporate
>>>>>     a UEFI (a M$ abomination) partition a the
>>>>>     very start. You, kinda, CAN fake that with
>>>>>     gparted - create a FAT-32 part at the very
>>>>>     beginning, but it's not guarenteed to work
>>>>>     since special code needs to be loaded INTO
>>>>>     the little partition.
>>>> It’s an industry-wide design, not unique to Microsoft.
>>>    But it was a M$-driven PLOT - mostly to hurt Linux.
>>
>> The chip on your shoulder is obscuring your view.
> 
> 
>    Ummmm ... not so SURE about that !  :-)
> 
>    Keep an eye on the evolution of "secure boot"
>    setups too - M$ is in a position to decree that
>    Linux is 'insecure' and most board/bios makers
>    will follow them, not even let Linux boot - no
>    M$ signature, no go, no way around. That's the
>    future I see .....
> 
>    Gates and friends left the "computing/systems
>    for all" way of thinking LONG ago.

  I am not sure Gates did, but the guy who basically took over the 
marketing was a massively nasty piece of work.

But then you have to understand that standardisation by monopoly rather 
than by mutual agreement - as in the case of Linux or TCP/IP - is still 
a good thing in that everybody knows what they need to do to make a 
working system.
Historians will, no doubt, argue for millennia of whether the 'wrong' 
standard early is or was better than the 'right' standard later.


-- 
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social 
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the 
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37211

On 2023-02-21, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 21/02/2023 02:53, 25B.E866 wrote:
>
>>    Keep an eye on the evolution of "secure boot"
>>    setups too - M$ is in a position to decree that
>>    Linux is 'insecure' and most board/bios makers
>>    will follow them, not even let Linux boot - no
>>    M$ signature, no go, no way around. That's the
>>    future I see .....

Microsoft's dream for UEFI was to turn it into a device
that makes it impossible to boot anything but Windows.
Fortunately the open source community was resourceful
enough to quickly derail that plan.

>>    Gates and friends left the "computing/systems
>>    for all" way of thinking LONG ago.
>
>   I am not sure Gates did, but the guy who basically took over the 
> marketing was a massively nasty piece of work.

Only marginally less nasty than Gates, who was enough
of a bastard that other companies were becoming reluctant
to deal with Microsoft.

> But then you have to understand that standardisation by monopoly rather 
> than by mutual agreement - as in the case of Linux or TCP/IP - is still 
> a good thing in that everybody knows what they need to do to make a 
> working system.

As long as you don't mind having all architectural decisions and
supply chains being dictated by the monopolist, now and forever.

> Historians will, no doubt, argue for millennia of whether the 'wrong' 
> standard early is or was better than the 'right' standard later.

Still, don't you wish the 680x0 won out over the 80x86,
or that Gary Kildall was home when IBM came to call?

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  Apple is a cult.
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  Linux is anarchy.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  Pick your poison.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37222

On 21/02/2023 19:12, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2023-02-21, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 21/02/2023 02:53, 25B.E866 wrote:
>>
>>>     Keep an eye on the evolution of "secure boot"
>>>     setups too - M$ is in a position to decree that
>>>     Linux is 'insecure' and most board/bios makers
>>>     will follow them, not even let Linux boot - no
>>>     M$ signature, no go, no way around. That's the
>>>     future I see .....
> 
> Microsoft's dream for UEFI was to turn it into a device
> that makes it impossible to boot anything but Windows.
> Fortunately the open source community was resourceful
> enough to quickly derail that plan.
> 
>>>     Gates and friends left the "computing/systems
>>>     for all" way of thinking LONG ago.
>>
>>    I am not sure Gates did, but the guy who basically took over the
>> marketing was a massively nasty piece of work.
> 
> Only marginally less nasty than Gates, who was enough
> of a bastard that other companies were becoming reluctant
> to deal with Microsoft.
> 
>> But then you have to understand that standardisation by monopoly rather
>> than by mutual agreement - as in the case of Linux or TCP/IP - is still
>> a good thing in that everybody knows what they need to do to make a
>> working system.
> 
> As long as you don't mind having all architectural decisions and
> supply chains being dictated by the monopolist, now and forever.
> 
>> Historians will, no doubt, argue for millennia of whether the 'wrong'
>> standard early is or was better than the 'right' standard later.
> 
> Still, don't you wish the 680x0 won out over the 80x86,
> or that Gary Kildall was home when IBM came to call?
> 

Actually, with hindsight, no not really.
What MSDOS anfd WINDERS  made plain, to all except OS acolytes, is that 
what people want are applications, not operating systems.

Sure WINDERS is like a steam engine and cart springs, BUT everyone built 
a body for it.

-- 
“Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of 
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

    -  John K Galbraith

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37218

On 2/18/23 19:24, 25B.R866 wrote:
> On 2/18/23 9:21 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> "25B.R866" <25B.R866@noaaba.net> writes:
>>>    Most modern bootable USBs also incorporate
>>>    a UEFI (a M$ abomination) partition a the
>>>    very start. You, kinda, CAN fake that with
>>>    gparted - create a FAT-32 part at the very
>>>    beginning, but it's not guarenteed to work
>>>    since special code needs to be loaded INTO
>>>    the little partition.
>>
>> It’s an industry-wide design, not unique to Microsoft.
>    But it was a M$-driven PLOT - mostly to hurt Linux.
> 
>> The thing you
>> need to copy into it is your boot loader. Conceptually it’s not much
>> different from installing a boot loader into a boot sector. The
>> practical differences are that you can have more than one operating
>> system’s boot loader there, and you have more than 512 bytes to play
>> with before having to chain to something else.
> 
>    With GRUB you only need to load ONE thing, GRUB, at
>    boot. Then IT takes care of all the alternatives. It
>    will work just fine from a non-UEFI medium.
> 
>    Now if, for some reason, you don't WANT to use anything
>    like GRUB then, yea, the data in the UEFI can theoretically
>    boot multiple systems (until M$ decides it shouldn't by
>    adding a few 'poison' bytes somewhere (they'll call it
>    a 'security enhancement')).

	When a Windows system updates its kernel it will mess up
the UEFI and you will have to reinstall your boot loader from a
live distro.  PCLinux has a script for this called "Redo Bootloader".

bliss-“Nearly any fool can use a GNU/Linux computer. Many do.”
			After all here I am... Again.

-- 
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web