Linux Outlaws 292 – Blowjobs in Space

  • Dan is finally a true outlaw
Merseyside Police is hunting Dan
Merseyside Police is hunting Dan
Dan's festive hat
Dan’s festive hat


  • Torvalds shares Millenium Technology Prize with Shinya Yamanaka
  • Secure Boot
  • Ubuntu 12.04 and 12.10
  • Fedora 17, Fedora 18 delay
  • Red Hat becomes the first open source 1 Billion Dollar Company
  • Samsung joined the Linux Foundation, so did HP
  • VMware joined OpenStack
  • Raspberry Pi, ARM
  • Cinnamon, Nemo
  • Steam on Linux
  • Automotive Linux
  • Android totally owns everything else in market share, probably now #1 consumer operating system globally — Linux has of course always owned the supercomputer market
  • New Chromebooks, Dell Sputnik
  • The cloud craze

We also talk about our favourite hardware and software releases this year.

Song: Epic Rap Battles of History: Steve Jobs vs. Bill Gates (all rights reserved)


  1. Whig says:

    So (a) SecureBoot is not DRM, (b) those who say SecureBoot is DRM are spreading FUD, (c) Microsoft is using SecureBoot to prevent users from changing their Surface’s software, (d) this doesn’t count as DRM because Surface is a tablets.

    You’re full of shit, Fab.

  2. ThinkGNU says:

    I understand the distinction that you make with Secure Boot and how it is part of the UEFI standard. The way I understand the argument though, is that the problem with the way Microsoft is implementing it is that the user is not in control of the feature, short of turning it off. If the user is in complete control, then they would have the option of using this feature without getting a signed key from Microsoft. Because the user has to use Microsoft’s signed certificate in order to be protected by Secure Boot it is not under control of the user and can be seen as a way to lock other operating systems from booting on the machine. In that sense it is more Restricted Boot than it is Secure Boot.

    I’m not trying to pick a fight or call names like the post above but I do see a distinction there and I do think that it is a bit underhanded on Microsoft’s part. It’s no surprise by any means. It’s just that instead of directly attacking the GNU/Linux community they’ve found a less direct means of doing it. They can say that they’re offering a “security feature” instead of blocking the installation of other operating systems.

  3. fabsh says:

    If the user is in complete control, then they would have the option of using this feature without getting a signed key from Microsoft.

    They have that option. May I refer you to one of our articles on The H which explains this (we mentioned it several times on the show as well):

    Your argument depends on the assumption that Microsoft is colluding with hardware makers to prevent Linux vendors and or users from supplying their own keys. Microsoft is not the one controlling what keys go on the motherboards, that is down to the OEMs.

    Red Hat, SUSE, Canonical and the Linux Foundation now have all publicly said they see the Secure Boot situation as solved and that there is no problem for users. The FSF has publicly said that it thinks Canonical’s solution is sound. It amazes me how people, in the face of this, can still stir up panic and act like Secure Boot is the worst thing that has ever happened for user freedom. That stance is ridiculous.

  4. ThinkGNU says:

    I know that there are people that have come up with solutions to allow alternate Operating Systems to boot, but correct me if I’m wrong(and I know you will), it seems like the solutions in place still use the Microsoft key to boot the system. To me that’s a work around but not true freedom.

    I know that it is up to OEMs as to what key goes on the systems but Microsoft did go so far as to tell OEMs that they had to have the key in place in order to be able to put a Windows 8 Sticker on their machines. That seems to carry enough weight with OEMs that they did it.

    I do agree that this whole thing is being blown out of proportion and I think that a lot of people are misunderstanding it too. Like you said UEFI secure boot is part of the UEFI standard and there’s nothing wrong with it inherently. In my opinion, and I think this is where we disagree, what is being done with Windows 8 machines is Restricted Boot and should be referred to as such. People are up in arms calling Restricted boot Secure Boot and swearing the whole thing off entirely. If they understood the difference maybe their attitude toward the whole thing would be different.

    Anyway, just my $0.02 and just because I like to discuss things…I’m not trying to start a flame war.

  5. fabsh says:

    It uses whatever key the OEMs put on there. Currently that’s a Microsoft key in most cases, but Canonical and SUSE were working to change that.

Comments are closed.