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

Groups > comp.os.linux.hardware > #3449 > unrolled thread

Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint

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

Contents

  Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> - 2021-03-22 14:58 -0500
    Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-03-22 13:20 -0700
      Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> - 2021-03-22 15:46 -0500
        Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint Zebee Johnstone <zebeej@gmail.com> - 2021-03-23 00:35 +0000
    Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint Andrew <Doug@hyperspace.vogon.gov> - 2021-03-22 22:08 +0100
      Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> - 2021-03-22 16:20 -0500
      Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-03-23 08:30 +0100
    Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-03-23 08:22 +0100
      Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> - 2021-03-24 16:24 +0000
        Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2021-03-24 20:43 +0000
    Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2021-03-23 09:50 +0100
      Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-03-23 11:13 +0100
        Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be> - 2021-03-23 11:59 +0100
          Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-03-23 15:07 +0100
            Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2021-03-23 13:19 -0400
              Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-03-24 10:04 +0100
                Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2021-03-24 05:36 -0400
        Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2021-03-23 13:46 +0100
          Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-03-23 15:08 +0100
            Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2021-03-23 16:30 +0100
        Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2021-03-23 19:40 +0000
          Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-03-24 10:12 +0100
            Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> - 2021-03-24 20:55 +0000
          Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint Andrew <Doug@hyperspace.vogon.gov> - 2021-03-24 11:31 +0100
            Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2021-03-24 11:20 -0400
          Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> - 2021-03-24 07:49 -0500
            Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> - 2021-03-24 14:01 +0000
              Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> - 2021-03-24 10:02 -0500
    Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> - 2021-03-24 16:05 +0000
      Re: Best Desktop Computer for Linux Mint Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> - 2021-03-24 11:46 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#3465

On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 11:13:48 +0100, David Brown wrote:
> There is nothing that a UEFI BIOS can do that a traditional BIOS
> cannot,

Yes it is. An UEFI BIOS is able to understand and modify contents on file 
systems on the computer. This in combination with the feature to be able 
to update the BIOS from software running in the computers operating 
system makes things interesting in a bad way. This is the kind of 
features that gives us persistent malware surviving reformatted and even 
repaced disks. The features are not only used by malware makers but has 
also been used by vendors like Lenovo for bloatware:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150812/11395231925/lenovo-busted-
stealthily-installing-crapware-via-bios-fresh-windows-installs.shtml

What did they call this? Secure boot?

regards Henrik

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

#3467

On 23/03/2021 20:40, Henrik Carlqvist wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 11:13:48 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>> There is nothing that a UEFI BIOS can do that a traditional BIOS
>> cannot,
> 
> Yes it is. An UEFI BIOS is able to understand and modify contents on file 
> systems on the computer.

First, let me repeat - there is nothing that the UEFI BIOS can do that
another BIOS cannot.  There is nothing hindering a non-UEFI BIOS being
able to access files.  A Coreboot BIOS, for example, has as much of a
Linux system as you choose to compile into it.  It is not UEFI - it does
not provide the UEFI-specified services, or need the UEFI partition.

Secondly, a UEFI BIOS cannot access files except on a very simplistic
and limited filesystem (fat32).  It can't work with files on NTFS, ext4,
btrfs, raid, or anything else.

> This in combination with the feature to be able 
> to update the BIOS from software running in the computers operating 
> system makes things interesting in a bad way. This is the kind of 
> features that gives us persistent malware surviving reformatted and even 
> repaced disks. The features are not only used by malware makers but has 
> also been used by vendors like Lenovo for bloatware:
> 
> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150812/11395231925/lenovo-busted-
> stealthily-installing-crapware-via-bios-fresh-windows-installs.shtml
> 
> What did they call this? Secure boot?
> 

Traditional BIOSes have been able to block writes to boot sectors
(previous to that, boot sector viruses were "popular".  The only virus I
have ever had on a computer was a boot sector virus).  And updates to
BIOS were protected by "security by obscurity" - updates were so
inconvenient that you didn't do it by mistake or malware.

When you have unnecessarily features that are not used (and therefore
people don't get familiar with them and spot flaws), and an overly
complex design, then security failures are almost inevitable.

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

#3478

On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 10:12:10 +0100, David Brown wrote:

> On 23/03/2021 20:40, Henrik Carlqvist wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 11:13:48 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>>> There is nothing that a UEFI BIOS can do that a traditional BIOS
>>> cannot,
>> 
>> Yes it is. An UEFI BIOS is able to understand and modify contents on
>> file systems on the computer.
> 
> First, let me repeat - there is nothing that the UEFI BIOS can do that
> another BIOS cannot.  There is nothing hindering a non-UEFI BIOS being
> able to access files. 

In theory no, but in practice a traditional BIOS has size limits. With 
UEFI the BIOS got bloated and with this bloat came both problems from 
complexity and insecurity by design.

> A Coreboot BIOS, for example, has as much of a
> Linux system as you choose to compile into it.  It is not UEFI - it does
> not provide the UEFI-specified services, or need the UEFI partition.

Yes, I do not claim that UEFI is the only bloated BIOS. My intention was 
to compare UEFI with traditional (legacy) BIOS made to boot a DOS 
partition table with MBR.

> Secondly, a UEFI BIOS cannot access files except on a very simplistic
> and limited filesystem (fat32).  It can't work with files on NTFS, ext4,
> btrfs, raid, or anything else.

This is true, but some operating systems will look for files on that 
partition and run them.

> Traditional BIOSes have been able to block writes to boot sectors
> (previous to that, boot sector viruses were "popular".  The only virus I
> have ever had on a computer was a boot sector virus).

Yes, but a boot sector virus could be removed by replacing the drive or 
by simply overwriting the MBR. Malware which has gotten into your BIOS is 
a lot harder to get rid of.

regards Henrik

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

#3469

Henrik Carlqvist wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 11:13:48 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>> There is nothing that a UEFI BIOS can do that a traditional BIOS
>> cannot,
> 
> Yes it is. An UEFI BIOS is able to understand and modify contents on file
> systems on the computer. This in combination with the feature to be able
> to update the BIOS from software running in the computers operating
> system makes things interesting in a bad way. This is the kind of
> features that gives us persistent malware surviving reformatted and even
> repaced disks. The features are not only used by malware makers but has
> also been used by vendors like Lenovo for bloatware:
> 
> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150812/11395231925/lenovo-busted-
> stealthily-installing-crapware-via-bios-fresh-windows-installs.shtml
> 
> What did they call this? Secure boot?
> 
> regards Henrik
> 

If you're worried about horrible things happening on your /boot/efi 
filesystem, may I suggest 
https://linuxconfig.org/intrusion-detection-systems-using-tripwire-on-linux
I have used this in the distant past when in a corporate network where a 
sysadmin was known to have dubious morals and can say that you need to 
be very careful which filesystems you use this on - a "differences" 
report of half a million lines is useless for practical purposes, even 
/boot/efi is updated quite frequently with the distribution I use.

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

#3473

On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 06:31:25 -0400, Andrew <Doug@hyperspace.vogon.gov> wrote:
> If you're worried about horrible things happening on your /boot/efi
> filesystem, may I suggest
> https://linuxconfig.org/intrusion-detection-systems-using-tripwire-on-linux

This isn't a discussion about the files on disk being changed. It's a discussion
about the firmware being hacked, which would then make things like tripwire
useless. The firmware runs before the os even starts. While uefi normally only
includes code for working with vfat file systems, a hack of it could add code
that works with other file systems too.

Like the Intel Management engine, or the AMD Platform Security Processor, the
uefi firmware has control before the os starts up so it can in theory include
a remote access tool.

Unlike the Intel Management engine, or the AMD Platform Security Processor, which
are only found in server systems targeted at corporate or government users, the
uefi firmware is also in all newer consumer devices.

Tools like tripwire are helpful to identify changes made that the os can detect.
It doesn't help with stealth root kits that get started before the os or tripwire
starts.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

-- 
Change dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org to davidwhodgins@teksavvy.com for
email replies.

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

#3470

On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 19:40:38 -0000 (UTC)
Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.Carlqvist@deadspam.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 11:13:48 +0100, David Brown wrote:
> > There is nothing that a UEFI BIOS can do that a traditional BIOS
> > cannot,  
> 
> Yes it is. An UEFI BIOS is able to understand and modify contents on
> file systems on the computer. This in combination with the feature to
> be able to update the BIOS from software running in the computers
> operating system makes things interesting in a bad way. This is the
> kind of features that gives us persistent malware surviving
> reformatted and even repaced disks. The features are not only used by
> malware makers but has also been used by vendors like Lenovo for
> bloatware:
> 
> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150812/11395231925/lenovo-busted-
> stealthily-installing-crapware-via-bios-fresh-windows-installs.shtml
> 
> What did they call this? Secure boot?
> 
> regards Henrik

Thanks.  I won't be buying a Lenovo.

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

#3471

On 24/03/2021 12:49, Johnny wrote:

>> What did they call this? Secure boot?
>>
>> regards Henrik
> 
> Thanks.  I won't be buying a Lenovo.
> 

That was 2015, and Lenovo got rightly scolded.

In 2021, crapware is free with Windows 10. You won't be running that.


No, don't rule out Lenovo. They probably have the most Linux friendly 
kit out there, laptops and desktops, particularly in the second-hand 
ex-business (not consumer line) business.

https://itsfoss.com/lenovo-linux-certified/

Whatever you are looking at (Dell/HP/Lenovo), try and find a 
hardware-maintenance manual for the product, an online community of 
upgraders for the product (maybe also linux users), youtube channels, 
and availability of spares and goodies on eBay.

However, if you are into playing computer games, then go elsewhere. 
ex-Business line products won't have either the graphics or power supply 
support unless you bastardize a server or workstation machine.

-- 
Adrian C

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

#3472

On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 14:01:06 +0000
Adrian Caspersz <email@here.invalid> wrote:

> On 24/03/2021 12:49, Johnny wrote:
> 
> >> What did they call this? Secure boot?
> >>
> >> regards Henrik  
> > 
> > Thanks.  I won't be buying a Lenovo.
> >   
> 
> That was 2015, and Lenovo got rightly scolded.
> 
> In 2021, crapware is free with Windows 10. You won't be running that.
> 
> 
> No, don't rule out Lenovo. They probably have the most Linux friendly 
> kit out there, laptops and desktops, particularly in the second-hand 
> ex-business (not consumer line) business.
> 
> https://itsfoss.com/lenovo-linux-certified/
> 
> Whatever you are looking at (Dell/HP/Lenovo), try and find a 
> hardware-maintenance manual for the product, an online community of 
> upgraders for the product (maybe also linux users), youtube channels, 
> and availability of spares and goodies on eBay.
> 
> However, if you are into playing computer games, then go elsewhere. 
> ex-Business line products won't have either the graphics or power
> supply support unless you bastardize a server or workstation machine.
> 

I haven't decided yet which computer I will buy.  I just want a newer
one, I think this old HP came out in 2013.

I've picked out one so far, it's a little over 3 years old.

It only has 8GB of DDR4 memory, but I have 16 GB of DDR4 memory I can
install.

https://www.newegg.com/dell-optiplex-5050-business-desktops-workstations/p/1VK-0001-5JU87?Description=dell%20optiplex%205050&cm_re=dell_optiplex%205050-_-9SIAAJ2DBA8261-_-Product&quicklink=true

I don't play computer games other than Freecell, and the old HP is fine
for that.

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

#3474

In article <20210322145810.4efb70c6@jspc>, Johnny  <johnny@invalid.net> wrote:
>I have always used HP computers, then I got one with UEFI settings
>instead of a legacy BIOS.  I didn't think I would ever get Linux Mint
>installed on it.  I finally did get it installed, but it was a pain.
>
>I would like to try another brand of computer, like Asus, Lenovo, Acer
>or some other brand.

What's wrong with EFI?  It is different from working with an older
BIOS-based system, but once you're only slightly familiar with it, it seems
easier to deal with.  I've installed Gentoo Linux on EFI systems ranging
from a Dell PowerEdge R7515 on down to a Rock Pi X without any trouble to
speak of.

  _/_
 / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/           Top-posting!
 \_^_/                              >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

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

#3476

On 3/24/21 9:05 AM, Scott Alfter wrote:
> In article <20210322145810.4efb70c6@jspc>, Johnny  <johnny@invalid.net> wrote:
>> I have always used HP computers, then I got one with UEFI settings
>> instead of a legacy BIOS.  I didn't think I would ever get Linux Mint
>> installed on it.  I finally did get it installed, but it was a pain.
>>
>> I would like to try another brand of computer, like Asus, Lenovo, Acer
>> or some other brand.
> 
> What's wrong with EFI?  It is different from working with an older
> BIOS-based system, but once you're only slightly familiar with it, it seems
> easier to deal with.  I've installed Gentoo Linux on EFI systems ranging
> from a Dell PowerEdge R7515 on down to a Rock Pi X without any trouble to
> speak of.
> 
>    _/_
>   / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
> (IIGS( https://alfter.us/           Top-posting!
>   \_^_/                              >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
> 


	Nothing at all wrong with EFI and it provides better partioning choices 
for users who need it.  It is also capable of handling modern
equipment much easier than when 80 GB IDE hard drives were the norm.
When you have special needs for security then such a facility gives
you the chance to have multiple encrypted partions and systems such
as Split Linux which hids the actual OS from possibly interested
parties.   On my Amiga I had 9 partitions and one was the backup
of the system and that was on a 4.3 GB hard drive.  On my
Dell 6520 I had multiple OSes and partitions with my base
system having uefi, /boot, /, /var, /usr, /home and then for
the rest of the systems maybe 2 partions each and up to at
least 4 installs of various systems.  That does not run like
a charm but shows up the problems of that method especially
with GRUB which each new install modifies.  In addition those
extra partitions may be filled with the data for various uses.

	For a lot of uses LiLo is adequate but no longer maintained
as far as I know.  But for modern and future systems EFI is far
superior.

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

-- 
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.hardware

csiph-web