Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: Fedora 18 Isn't Looking Too Good, Anaconda Problems

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Rural Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamW View Post
    No, we've just been sitting around and twiddling our thumbs for three months.
    I get the irony, but I was not sure if that was the design you had in mind or not.

  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
    I get the irony, but I was not sure if that was the design you had in mind or not.
    well, the post didn't really do a good job of showing the design at all. It more just seemed to be a series of detail-based nitpicks. The broad design is much the same as you see there, but there have been all sorts of detail tweaks.

    edit: oh hey, somehow when I clicked your link I got to page two. Page one has a lot more stuff. Still, my reply more or less stands: the broad design is the same, it's been refined a lot. I'd say just wait for the Beta to come out and try it.
    Last edited by AdamW; 11-03-2012 at 12:20 AM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    783

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamW View Post
    No, we've just been sitting around and twiddling our thumbs for three months.
    So Microsoft had sucess they defined a useless feature, and created work for several months for opensource devs, and even worse, there will be hundrets of bug reports because of secureboot problems in future bug reports, like it was/is with acpi, on some even today 100 years after defining that crap pcs dont suspend... but now if something goes wrong they just dont boot linux, and thousends of people will blame "linux" therefor and will not try it out because of such bugs.

    Nice.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Montreal Canada
    Posts
    54

    Default When I am wrong I am wrong, and I admit it.

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamW View Post
    This is confused, in several ways.

    For a start, you're confusing UEFI and Secure Boot. UEFI is a new firmware standard for PCs, replacing the old BIOS standard. It has been around for several years, and Fedora has supported it for several releases, since Fedora 12 at least.

    You seem to be talking about Secure Boot, which is a single feature of recent versions of the UEFI specification. It is not mandatory under the UEFI spec, though it is required by Microsoft's Windows 8 certification program. Many systems have already shipped with UEFI firmwares in the last few years, with no Secure Boot. I'm typing this on one.

    As far as Secure Boot goes, most of the necessary support is not in anaconda, it is in the bootloader and kernel layers. anaconda does not have to do anything special to support Secure Boot, really, beyond maybe installing an extra package.

    And in terms of actually supporting Secure Boot - it is more correct to say that many parties, including RH and SUSE, have been working in collaboration to support SB. RH's Matthew Garrett came up with the broad design that Fedora, SUSE and Ubuntu will all use. SUSE suggested a neat revision to the design which Matt liked, and incorporated into his work; it's not correct to say that we started out with one codebase and then completely ditched it for a different one which SUSE designed, this is a misrepresentation. Since SUSE's plan was pretty much the same as Matt's plan plus the neat improvement, and Matt added their suggested improvement, they just decided to use the code Matt was working on. In the end it works out as a collaborative effort.

    Fedora and SUSE will both use virtually the same code for SB support. Ubuntu will use a slightly older version of the same code initially, configured in a slightly different way. As Matthew wrote at http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/18945.html:

    "As far as I know, Suse and Fedora will be shipping the same code. Ubuntu is shipping an older version of Shim but should pick up the local key management code in the next release. The only significant difference is that Ubuntu doesn't require that kernel modules be signed."

    I do recommend reading through Matt's blog archive on the topic. It's dense stuff, but you'll wind up better informed

    Hi Adam

    In my view, secure boot mother boards consisted of the UEFI bios along with TPM support. The bios integrates the two. I believed that the boot loader and anaconda were one and the same module.

    Thank you for clarifying the situation for me and the readers. I was wrong and I do thank you for the corrected information.

    Leslie

  5. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lsatenstein View Post
    Hi Adam

    In my view, secure boot mother boards consisted of the UEFI bios along with TPM support. The bios integrates the two. I believed that the boot loader and anaconda were one and the same module.

    Thank you for clarifying the situation for me and the readers. I was wrong and I do thank you for the corrected information.

    Leslie
    SB doesn't actually involve TPM in any way, they're separate technologies. There's no hardware element to SB, as Matt puts it, "No, Secure Boot has no chipset requirements. All trust is rooted in the firmware." In some ways it's a similar mechanism, but that's all. Not all SB machines have a TPM inside or anything.

  6. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    So Microsoft had sucess they defined a useless feature, and created work for several months for opensource devs, and even worse, there will be hundrets of bug reports because of secureboot problems in future bug reports, like it was/is with acpi, on some even today 100 years after defining that crap pcs dont suspend... but now if something goes wrong they just dont boot linux, and thousends of people will blame "linux" therefor and will not try it out because of such bugs.

    Nice.
    Again, Secure Boot is a different topic and has nothing to do with the re-design of anaconda. Work on SB support is progressing pretty smoothly and not really holding up F18 development.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •