05.14.13
Posted in FSF, Google, Mail, Microsoft at 2:58 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Another hypocritical attack of Microsoft against Google, this time in Boston
THE home of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the principal battleground for Microsoft's anti-ODF wars in the US is going to abandon Microsoft. Relation expected, right? Microsoft, as we saw before, is getting all nasty about it.
Well, “despite the Anti-Google FUD-slinging” Boston will ditch Exchange: “Faced with the choice of saving serious money or buying a load of FUD, the City of Boston has become the latest enterprise customer to dump Microsoft Exchange in favor of Google Apps.
“The thing to do is not to learn from Boston’s government branches but from the Boston-based FSF.”“And the city’s 20,000 employees won’t be the last to make this move until Microsoft either closes the cost chasm or comes up with a scarier story.”
Here is more: “THE CITY OF BOSTON has switched its 20,000 employees from Microsoft Exchange to Gmail in a move that will save $280,000 a year.”
Neither choice is acceptable. They are both proprietary and not privacy-respecting. So on what grounds does Microsoft attack Google? The same was done by Novell and Microsoft in California. They are all hypocrites because Microsoft itself is trying to do exactly what Google is doing.
The thing to do is not to learn from Boston’s government branches but from the Boston-based FSF. What they need is encrypted, self-hosted, FOSS-based mail. Later in the week we shall write about some newly-discovered Microsoft surveillance. Microsoft is a lot worse than Google when it comes to privacy. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.08.13
Posted in Antitrust, Debian, FSF, GNU/Linux, Kernel, Microsoft at 1:43 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The universal operating system should help hold Microsoft accountable for anticompetitive practices
Summary: With UEFI cracked as a security measure, all that is left can be deemed an impediment to GNU/Linux booting; hence, Debian GNU/Linux (leading among the free operating systems) should be used as evidence against Microsoft in an antitrust case
Microsoft cannot quite market the limitations of UEFI, notably restricted boot. Truth be told, boot-time malware is not the real threat but mostly a conceptual one (with proofs of concept put out there by security researchers), and moreover UEFI is easy for malicious entities to bypass [1, 2], as proven before (Torvalds, clearly not a fan of all this, saw it coming). Just like DRM, it hurts legitimate users and developers the most. No wonder there is an antitrust complaint over it,
“Truth be told, boot-time malware is not the real threat but mostly a conceptual one…”“A critical vulnerability in Internet Explorer 8 is being exploited in the wild and full information about how to make use of the vulnerability is now in widespread circulation. The recent attack on a sub-site of the US Department of Labor has revealed the attackers were in fact using a new exploit for a 0-day vulnerability which only affects Internet Explorer 8,” says this report. So why does Microsoft obsess over boot-time?
UEFI addresses an issue which hardly exists, it is a solution in search of a problem. A highly-anticipated Debian version was released the other day and it is not compatible with Microsoft’s latest hardware restrictions, says Sam Varghese. To quote:
The Debian GNU/Linux project released version 7.0 of its well-known Linux distribution on May 4, two years and three months after the last version came out.
Debian backs the FSF on this matter, so it can hopefully add its support to the antitrust complaint too. █
NB: I am a Debian GNU/Linux user. This distribution recently got some endorsements from the FSF, and vice versa. Its policies under the latest leadership are commendable.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.14.13
Posted in FSF, Microsoft, Vista 8, Vista 9, Windows at 3:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Leaving Windows in droves…
Summary: Actions of measurable effect (e.g. antitrust, campaigns) against the operation system version which is killing Microsoft’s common carrier, Windows®
Microsoft is destroying Windows by taking over machines and sending them faulty binaries. Microsoft is breaking Windows, “causing some PCs to blue screen,” says the report. This is not a matter of deliberate sabotage, but Microsoft is driving users away with its own negligence as people already flock away to alternatives, not Vista 8 (Claudio from Linux Basement says: “Holy crap, #Microsoft! Really? In 2013??”). Vista 9 vapourware has begun because Vista 8 is probably worse than Windows ME, not just Vista. This is a very big deal and the corporate press is starting to catch on.
Despite Microsoft-induced downtimes and technical incompetence (yes, even this week, leading to official probes at government level*), in the Indian public sector there seem to be new EDGI moves whose intention is to kill Free software in favour of total lock-in, Fog Computing that Microsoft controls entirely (from data to binaries). One reader wrote to say to us:
Colleges running Free software in India have been asked to move to Microsoft cloud
This basically means that students will be forced to give Microsoft™ their data. Fair deal? And bear this in mind in light of Microsoft’s claims about Google. Microsoft is meanwhile attacking Android with an antitrust complaint that’s called ‘an attack on open source’, as we noted the other day. Hypocrisy here is impossible to overlook.
The FSF, to its credit, has started this action which calls people to abolish Vista 8. It is an infographic (appended below) and it says: “Sometimes, proprietary software actually helps us fight for freedom. Windows 8 is so bad it’s almost funny–it’s not only proprietary software full of spyware and security vulnerabilities, but it’s also confusing for would-be users. Lucky for us, Microsoft’s spectacular failure is the perfect time to help people switch to free software.”
Given what Microsoft has done with UEFI, this is getting more difficult, but there are those who try to help. This new article says: “The UEFI boot specification offers new capabilities – and new headaches if you aren’t ready for it.”
Fortunately there is an antitrust complaint about it. █
___
* The said infrastructure is very Microsoft-reliant, even if the articles about it don’t say so. I know this as a customer for 13 years (RBS and NatWest are connected).
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.22.13
Posted in Audio/Video, FSF at 8:02 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: New audio recording from Swapnil Bhartiya, the last of this early series by Muktware
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.21.13
Posted in Audio/Video, FSF at 5:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: New audio from Swapnil Bhartiya
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in FSF, Videos at 5:35 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: New audio from Swapnil Bhartiya
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.16.13
Posted in FSF at 11:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Happy birthday
Richard Stallman with XO, via stallman.org
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.02.13
Posted in Antitrust, FSF, GNU/Linux, Kernel, Microsoft at 6:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Photo by Alex Dawson, 2002
Summary: “Because it really shouldn’t be about MS blessings, it should be about the *user* blessing kernel modules,” Torvalds explains
THE MAN who habitually dismisses some Microsoft critics proves his older statements to be somewhat hypocritical. He too treats Microsoft exceptionally.
Torvalds recently made headlines by using strong language and addressing a controversial subject. It is about UEFI with restricted boot and here is some more relevant coverage he generated, helping to raise awareness of the issue:
-
A push by Red Hat kernel developer David Howells and ex-Red Hat developer Matthew Garrett to get code supporting secure boot merged into the mainline kernel to meet some of Microsoft’s requirements has led to a sharp rebuke from Linux creator Linus Torvalds.
Howell made a request for a patchset to be pulled into the mainline kernel last Thursday, writing, “It (the patchset) provides a facility by which keys can be added dynamically to a kernel that is running in secure-boot mode.
-
Linux guru Linus Torvalds is at it again. After telling Nvidia to go forth and multiply, the outspoken Torvalds has decided to share some of his thoughts on Microsoft’s signing techniques in a heated online argument with fellow Linux developers.
The developers were discussing ways of improving the Linux kernel with a bit of code that makes it easier to boot on Windows 8 PCs. The process of booting Linux on PCs shipped with Windows 8 has been complicated due to the widespread use of UEFI firmware with Secure Boot feature enabled. Red Hat developers emailed Torvalds to discuss the addition of new keys to the Linux kernel, which should get around the issue.
-
Red Hat’s Secure Boot support is a case of the company wanting to “deep-throat Microsoft”, according to a forthright posting from Linus Torvalds on the Linux kernel developer mailing list. Torvald’s comments were made in response to plans by a Red Hat developer to extend Linux support for Secure Boot. The comments have given rise to an ongoing discussion, during which several prominent kernel developers have shared their thoughts on Secure Boot support in Linux.
Moreover, as it turns out, US citizens can now sign this petition calling for the White House to get involved to tackle the antitrust abuse (reports suggest that Microsoft’s fine for antitrust abuses in Europe is only weeks away).
James Bottomley wrote about this in his blog, but being former Novell staff who had worked on Microsoft projects, we expect no strong opposition from him. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, a Novell-sympathetic writer, wrote this followup:
No one, but no one, in the Linux community likes Microsoft’s mandated deployment of the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) Secure Boot option in Windows 8 certified PCs. But, how Linux should handle the fixes required to deal with this problem remains a hot-button issue. Now, as the debate continues hot and heavy, Linus Torvalds, Linux’s founder and de facto leader, spells out how he thinks Linux should deal with Secure Boot keys.
Swapnil Bhartiya, not a strong critic of Novell because he likes SUSE, sure isn’t a fan of what Microsoft is doing here. He is in good company when he writes along the same lines of Torvalds, whom he interviewed last year:
There is a heated (heat is a bit colder word) debate going on within the Linux community over how should Linux handle the Microsoft’s secure boot keys.
In an ongoing discussing Linus Torvalds has made some suggestions which he believes put users in control of their system and not Microsoft.
Torvalds was sarcastic when saying, “let’s please Microsoft by doing idiotic crap approach.”
This attitude is not exactly news (Torvalds alleges that so-called Secure Boot has nothing to do with security). “Because it really shouldn’t be about MS blessings, it should be about the *user* blessing kernel modules,” Linus Torvalds believes. He basically agrees with Richard Stallman and the FSF then.
Dr. Garrett, on the other hand, continues to push for the agenda that Microsoft hoped for, facilitating its control over Linux, Here is part of this whole long discussion where Torvalds says:
So instead of pleasing microsoft, try to see how we can add real security:
- a distro should sign its own modules AND NOTHING ELSE by default. And it damn well shouldn’t allow any other modules to be loaded at all by default, because why the f*ck should it? And what the hell should a Microsoft signature have to do with *anything*?
- before loading any third-party module, you’d better make sure you ask the user for permission. On the console. Not using keys. Nothing like that. Keys will be compromised. Try to limit the damage, but more importantly, let the user be in control.
– encourage things like per-host random keys – with the stupid UEFI checks disabled entirely if required. They are almost certainly going to be *more* secure than depending on some crazy root of trust based on a big company, with key signing authorities that trust anybody with a credit card. Try to teach people about things like that instead. Encourage people to do their own (random) keys, and adding those to their UEFI setups (or not: the whole UEFI thing is more about control than security), and strive to do things like one-time signing with the private key thrown out entirely. IOW try to encourage *that* kind of “we made sure to ask the user very explicitly with big warnings and create his own key for that particular module” security. Real security, not “we control the user” security.
Sure, users will screw that up too. They’ll want to load crazy nvidia binary modules etc crap. But make it *their* decision, and under
*their* control, instead of trying to tell the world about how this should be blessed by Microsoft.
Because it really shouldn’t be about MS blessings, it should be about the *user* blessing kernel modules.
Quite frankly, *you* are what he key-hating crazies were afraid of. You peddle the “control, not security” crap-ware. The whole “MS owns your machine” is *exactly* the wrong way to use keys.
Sam Varghese, consistently an opposer of restricted boot, says that it would put “Linux is at Microsoft’s mercy”:
Linux companies or organisations that have paid for, and obtained, keys from Microsoft to ensure that their distributions can be booted on secure boot-enabled devices, have to abide by the terms of a contract or else may have their keys revoked.
Whatever some Linux developers with past in Novell may say, at least we know Torvalds’ approach is perhaps more similar to the FSF’s than his employer’s. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
