- luv-main - luv.asn.au

Re: [luv-main] Purchasing a new laptop
by Russell Coker 27 Sep '11

27 Sep '11

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011, Daniel Pittman <daniel(a)rimspace.net> wrote: > Yes, but do you care? The day to day performance difference > approximates zero, and it has done for several years, for most > practical purposes. You can tell the difference when it comes to > compiling software in languages with highly efficient compilers (eg: > not, generally, C or C++), and when doing extremely CPU intensive > operations (3D rendering, encoding), but desktop stuff? The main performance issue I have on DESKTOP tasks (as opposed to compiling, video processing, etc) is web browsing. For that the difference between a Pentium-M 1.7GHz (like a P3) and a dual-core 64bit CPU wasn't that obvious - Mozilla is slow everywhere. Supporting more than 4G of RAM is a real performance benefit for modern desktop software, something that is a problem with my latest desktop system that is limited to 3300M of RAM (nasty Intel). For my desktop stuff moving from Mozilla to Chrome was a much better performance boost than moving from 32bit to dual-core 64bit. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/

5 15

Re: [luv-main] Microsoft requires Windows 8 logo systems to not bootunsigned OS's
by Rick Moen 27 Sep '11

27 Sep '11

Quoting Daniel Pittman (daniel(a)rimspace.net) > They note the specific part of their role that this hits, what the > larger conditions are, and identify that there might be an issue under > those terms. > > They are not, obviously, leaping directly into an investigation today, > but that seems reasonable: the issue came to light weeks ago, the > product is not on the market, and generally governments (for better or > worse) prefer a hands-off approach to allow businesses to sort this > out. > > So, you win: they agree that there might be a restriction on > competition in the market, and that might deserve investigation later, > when the details are clear. Moreover, they impliedly invite someone like Prof. Poyogo-Theotoky to detail for them how the substantial lessening of competition is occurring. (Obviously, such an explanation will be much more effective after MS-Window 8 ships and specific real-world OEM details can be cited.)

1 0

Save Linux on Pre-built computers in Australia!
by Luke Martinez 25 Sep '11

25 Sep '11

I posted this here because it should get its own thread. Hello, It as part of the Windows 8 OEM scheme Microsoft requires the OEM's to lock down the computer to only run windows 8 or other "authorized" OS'es via a signature system.[1] for "security" reasons. Put simply, Microsoft as part of their OEM system require all new computers shipping with windows 8 to use secure signing keys to prevent 'unauthorized software' from running on the computer. This will prevent all free software operating systems from running on the computers that come with OEM by default. So, we need YOU to stand up for Linux in Australia (and other countries)! Simply follow these easy steps. 1. Click this link: here<http://www.accc.gov.au/content/maintain/create/index.phtml?contentTypeItemI…> 2. Fill out your concerns. (Find an attached letter for reference) 3. Submit with Personal Information (note result, post interesting stuff) 4. Tell your friends to do the same 5. (optional) Forward this to your favourite Linux Mailing List 6. (optional) Phone the ACCC at1300 302 502. Regards, Luke Martinez me(a)luke.asia Here is some more info for those who don't know: http://video.ch9.ms/build/2011/slides/HW-457T_van_der_Hoeven.pptx (slide 11) [1] http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/5552.html [2] http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/49889-will-windows-8-… Here is the reference letter: To ACCC I have recently learnt that any new computer or laptop that ships with the upcoming Windows 8 Operating System will not be able to run any other Operating System. Microsoft's new UEFI Secure Boot system prevents 'unauthorized software' from running on any new computer sold with Windows 8. Making a system that ships with only Micrsoft Windows not being able to boot a copy of Linux or any other operating system. I wish to use Linux on future computers, and this will not allow me to use Linux at all. Microsoft is engaging in seriously anti-competitive behaviour by forcing the lockout of all competitors. (See: http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/49889-will-windows-8-…) Not only will Microsoft kick out Linux off the computers, they will prevent 'upgrading' of windows versions: creating forced obsolescence. I am disgusted, is Microsoft legally allowed to do this? Microsoft has been slowly becoming more anti-competitive: computing used to be about choice, having the ability to choose the Operating System. Now Microsoft want to have complete control. Regards,

2 1

Re: [luv-main] Microsoft requires Windows 8 logo systems to not bootunsigned OS's
by Jason White 25 Sep '11

25 Sep '11

Daniel Pittman <daniel(a)rimspace.net> wrote: > Well, assuming that the vendors are lazy, yeah. Which /probably/ > isn't a stated goal, but might not be a think. Personally, I suspect > that the vendors will have an option to turn it off in the > configuration whatever, so you can install whatever on it. Because > Linux is enough of a server OS, these days, that the low margin, high > volume vendors probably don't want to go down the path of cutting off > part of their business, and producing two different EFI > implementations would cut into that. I agree with your assessment. I think Matthew Garrett's point, if I understand it correctly, is that some, but not all vendors will implement the minimum necessary for Windows compliance and hence not include the option to disable secure booting. Given his vast experience of what BIOS writers do, I'm strongly inclined to give weight to that prediction.

2 1

Re: [luv-main] Microsoft requires Windows 8 logo systems to not bootunsigned OS's
by Chris Samuel 25 Sep '11

25 Sep '11

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 02:01:47 AM Daniel Pittman wrote: > Personally, I would be finding a tame SuperMicro vendor in the > region, who are extremely unlikely to stop selling Linux > compatible systems, what with their business market using it and > all. It's worth noting that Matthew Garrett's original post explicitly said Microsoft were requiring this for systems shipped with a client version of Windows 8 - so server vendors won't be affected (as Microsoft knows they wouldn't stand a chance doing this in that market sector). cheers, Chris -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC This email may come with a PGP signature as a file. Do not panic. For more info see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPGP

1 0

Re: [luv-main] Microsoft requires Windows 8 logo systems to not bootunsigned OS's
by Russell Coker 24 Sep '11

24 Sep '11

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011, Craig Sanders <cas(a)taz.net.au> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 08:52:35PM -0700, Daniel Pittman wrote: > > So, the biggest advantage is that it does work against all those > > attacks that compromise the kernel and/or drivers to get into the > > kernel after a restart. Which, indeed, is where many of the "root > > kit" tools hit, on Windows. > > so the "solution" is to prevent installation of competing operating > systems that don't have the security flaws that allow malware to > compromise the kernel? or the BIOS. > > wonderful. makes perfect sense. If you ran a corporate IT department and had a set of Linux laptops then it would be handy to be able to lock them down to prevent them from being used for gaming, pr0n, etc. A BIOS that could be locked to a GPG key to only load a signed kernel and initrd could be a first stage towards a locked down system. Like many technologies this can be used for good or evil. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/

2 1

Re: [luv-main] New Laptop
by Russell Coker 24 Sep '11

24 Sep '11

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, stripes theotoky <stripes.theotoky(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > I'm looking at this as a replacement laptop. > > http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=6106&review=lenovo+thinkpa > d+w520 > > Does anyone have any experience of running Linux on it? > Is there support for VT-x in the bios. > I am hoping to configure it as Linux with Windows 7 64 running in Virtual > Box. http://etbe.coker.com.au/2011/09/09/modern-laptops-suck/ Thinkpads are generally good for what they are, but modern laptops suck because they seem to be designed to compete with desktop systems - and the Thinkpad W series seems to be one of the worst in this regard. Modern laptops can't run on your lap because they either have passive cooling in the base through a metal shell (like Macs) or cooling vents (like Thinkpads). They also can't run at high speed when closed (so you can't close the lid after starting a big compile) because the keyboard is used as part of the system cooling. The one you are looking at has an NVidia graphics controller which means it will either be slow or have a binary-only kernel module. I expect that KVM will work as it works on my Thinkpad T61 and I haven't heard reports of regressions in such things. I haven't tried running Windows under KVM though. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/

2 2

Re: [luv-main] SELinux
by Russell Coker 24 Sep '11

24 Sep '11

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Andrew Spiers <7andrew(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Is there a semanage command to set which users can access this file? I > can't figure it out from the man page. You don't "set which users can access a file". You set the context of the file which then determines (according to the policy database) whether a process of a given context is permitted to access it. http://doc.coker.com.au/computers/se-linux-terminology/ The context of a process for the user shell is determined by the SE Linux "identity" assigned to their account and the "role" assigned to that identity. See the above URL for some background. On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Andrew Spiers <7andrew(a)gmail.com> wrote: > and yet restorecon does not change unconfined_u to system_u. Try with the -F option. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/

1 0

Re: [luv-main] Microsoft requires Windows 8 logo systems to not bootunsigned OS's
by Russell Coker 24 Sep '11

24 Sep '11

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011, Craig Sanders <cas(a)taz.net.au> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 08:52:35PM -0700, Daniel Pittman wrote: > > So, the biggest advantage is that it does work against all those > > attacks that compromise the kernel and/or drivers to get into the > > kernel after a restart. Which, indeed, is where many of the "root > > kit" tools hit, on Windows. > > so the "solution" is to prevent installation of competing operating > systems that don't have the security flaws that allow malware to > compromise the kernel? or the BIOS. > > wonderful. makes perfect sense. If you ran a corporate IT department and had a set of Linux laptops then it would be handy to be able to lock them down to prevent them from being used for gaming, pr0n, etc. A BIOS that could be locked to a GPG key to only load a signed kernel and initrd could be a first stage towards a locked down system. Like many technologies this can be used for good or evil. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/

1 0

Re: [luv-main] SELinux
by Russell Coker 24 Sep '11

24 Sep '11

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Andrew Spiers <7andrew(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Is there a semanage command to set which users can access this file? I > can't figure it out from the man page. You don't "set which users can access a file". You set the context of the file which then determines (according to the policy database) whether a process of a given context is permitted to access it. http://doc.coker.com.au/computers/se-linux-terminology/ The context of a process for the user shell is determined by the SE Linux "identity" assigned to their account and the "role" assigned to that identity. See the above URL for some background. On Tue, 20 Sep 2011, Andrew Spiers <7andrew(a)gmail.com> wrote: > and yet restorecon does not change unconfined_u to system_u. Try with the -F option. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/

1 0