Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Ceterum Censeo, UEFI needs to die. (Score 1) 162

Do you even know what FUD means? It means Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

Now, let's look at what you call 'no FUD':

'need someones permission...redmond' FEAR! Be very afraid!!!
'maybe be MAFIAA' UNCERTAINTY! They could be watching!!!
'MAYBE is your work really hard...' DOUBT! You'll never be able to run anything bu Windows!!!

Your entire post is nothing but FUD.

Comment Re:Secure Boot ? (Score 1) 162

If you don't have secure boot turned on, how do you know that the GRUB you are loading is not compromised to load an unsigned kernel? In fact, if secure boot is not turned on GRUB will NOT verify the kernel.

With secure boot turned off, the shim can't be trusted. If the shim can't be trusted then GRUB can't be trusted. If GRUB can't be trusted then the kernel can't be trusted. And if the kernel can't be trusted then any verification of signed code that it does can't be trusted.

Saying secure boot is not about security is nuts. It IS about security. The fact that is can ALSO be used for other purposes does not diminish its security usefulness.

Comment Re:Secure Boot ? (Score 1) 162

Nonsense. It does not verify the signature agains a list of 'approved vendors'. It verifies the signature against a list of approved signers. While some crappy consumer brands may have built-in keys that can't be changed, real computers (servers) allow you, the machine owner, to install your own keys.

As to what happens once booted, that depends on what you booted. GRUB will verify the signature of the kernel and initrd before it loads them. If Linux is configured for IMA (Integrity Management Architecture) it will verify the signature of files upon an 'open', including the kernel modules. And it you use remote attestation you can verify that you are not running previously signed but vulnerable code.

The amount of FUD surrounding secure boot is astounding.

Comment Re:No problem! (Score 1) 397

Everything is simple when you don't know what you're talking about.

If the manufacturer is responsible for making the thing repairable, then the manufacturer has to supply the parts. That means the manufacturer has to BUY the parts, which he may never be able to sell. Carrying inventory is not cheap.

Also, the parts inside two identical products may be different, depending on things like component vintage, minor design changes, etc. Every little change means more part numbers and more inventory. Attempts to reduce this result in less flexibility for the manufacturer, and that can greatly increase costs.

And that is not even considering the actual manufacturing processes. How much more does a machine that can pick up, orient, and drive tiny screws (especially if you must avoid 'weird' screws designed for such things) cost than one that squirts a dollop of glue? How much more maintenance does such a machine require? How much more of an opportunity for something to go wrong is there? How much does the increased waste from problems cost? How much more line-down time is there when small changes (screw must be moved by .5MM) must be made? How much does warranty cost increase as a result of an otherwise unnecessary connector failing?

Comment Re:The question they should have asked (Score 1) 397

I just took a little, unscientific, poll of 10 coworkers. Out of those 10, the oldest phone was 3 years. Out of those 10, only 2 people had EVER had a phone longer than 2 years. Exactly 1 person had EVER replaced a phone because it was unrepairable/too expensive to repair.

In 2016 there were approx 2.1B smart phones in use, up from 1.86B the year before. In 2016 there were approx 1.5B smart phones sold. Approx 250M of those went to new users, so 1.25B people replaced their phone. In other words, approx 2/3 of the worlds phone users replaced their phones. I am willing to be the vast majority of those phones were replaced simply because people wanted a new phone, not because the old one was broken.

Why would any sane person want to pay for a phone that lasts 5 years, when they will probably junk it after 2?

Comment Re:Ok, ballpark figures (Score 1) 147

The problem is not how clear you are, but that you make no sense. Let's take an easy example, the lefts favorite whipping boy, Walmart. The average employee is low paid, but the CEO makes $21M. Clearly an outrage, right?

My understanding of your position is that if he was not making $21M, that money would be used to get his employees out of poverty, and that his $21M represents 'most of the proceeds', and the rest of the employees are living off 'crumbs'.

Let's make the insane assumption that every employee, other than the CEO, makes $8/hr, works half time (1000 hrs/yr), and has no benefits (paid time off, insurance, employee discounts, etc) at all. Since they have 2.1M employees, that means a payroll of $16.8B. The CEOs compensation represents 1/8 of 1% of the payroll. Please explain how that is 'most of the proceeds' and the 99 and 7/8% of money going to the employees is 'the crumbs'.

Now, as for cutting his compensation and using that money to get the employees out of poverty. If you cut his compensation to $0, and distribute it to the employees, you have given each employee $10. Per YEAR. Are you really going to claim that $10/yr is the difference between poverty and not poverty?

Comment Re:Can we stop caring about this? (Score 1) 253

Being threatened IS 'actual' harm, legally speaking. And once again, you are not being punished for your speech, you are being punished for the consequences of your speech.

And your last sentence is just silly. ALL threats, including pointing a gun at someone, are dependant 'on a state existing in the head...'. The question becomes 'what did YOU do to cause that state?'

Comment Re:Can we stop caring about this? (Score 1) 253

Nobody said that there aren't any consequences. The question is whether or not it is ILLEGAL to say or write those words. And it is not. Sure, you may get a visit from some not too friendly Secret Service types. You may be put on a watch list. You may be surveilled day and night for indications that you are putting your threat into action (which is of course illegal). Won't you WON'T be is arrested, tried, and convicted of merely saying or writing some words.

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis