On 2/21/23 6:42 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> On 21/02/2023 08:39, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> Gates isn’t running MS, which has changed considerably since the
>>> 1990s.
>>
>> I think so. Basically what seems to be happening from my rather
>> detached perspective these days, is that the further down the users
>> IQ scale you go, the more IT is geared towards (someone else's) cloud
>> operation and touch screen / audio command driven devices.
>
> It’s not limited to the non-techy end of things; there’s a lot of
> as-a-service software dev support out there. GitHub is perhaps the most
> famous (oh look, Microsoft again) but it’s not the only one.
>
>> There simply isn't that much money in desktop systems any more, and
>> indeed there is some doubt that the main office productivity stuff -
>> writing and printing paper - actually needs be done on a traditional
>> PC at all.
>>
>> Arguably the money is in cloud *services* and web or at least internet
>> based apps running on whatever is appropriate.
>
> Shifting spreadsheets and the other non-techy tools to a shared-editing
> model (which in practice mostly means SaaS and cloud provision) is a big
> win for collaboration and lightweight process within an organization.
>
>> My bet is that Windows will in the end be just another Linux distro
>> with legacy library hooks to run Winders apps.
>
> People have said that before but it would be a huge amount of work
> compared to just keeping Windows going in its current form. I don’t
> think it’ll happen.

I think, like Apple, they'll just HAVE to drift
in that direction. Winders is now a bowl of
spaghetti that's been put in a clothes-dryer
on top of being insanely vulnerable to every
script-kiddie hacker in the known universe.

But the change won't be overnight. They'll keep
replacing BITS with unix-style code until, in
the end, it's a proprietary Unix that still has
the 'look-n-feel' of Winders at many levels.

"Cloud" does have its place, but be *careful*

"Collaborative" software is interesting (though
think-out the file/record access/permissions
mess a bit - not much 'clean' there :-)

On 2/18/23 19:24, 25B.R866 wrote:
> On 2/18/23 9:21 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> "25B.R866" <25B.R866@noaaba.net> writes:
>>>    Most modern bootable USBs also incorporate
>>>    a UEFI (a M$ abomination) partition a the
>>>    very start. You, kinda, CAN fake that with
>>>    gparted - create a FAT-32 part at the very
>>>    beginning, but it's not guarenteed to work
>>>    since special code needs to be loaded INTO
>>>    the little partition.
>>
>> It’s an industry-wide design, not unique to Microsoft.
>   But it was a M$-driven PLOT - mostly to hurt Linux.
>
>> The thing you
>> need to copy into it is your boot loader. Conceptually it’s not much
>> different from installing a boot loader into a boot sector. The
>> practical differences are that you can have more than one operating
>> system’s boot loader there, and you have more than 512 bytes to play
>> with before having to chain to something else.
>
>   With GRUB you only need to load ONE thing, GRUB, at
>   boot. Then IT takes care of all the alternatives. It
>   will work just fine from a non-UEFI medium.
>
>   Now if, for some reason, you don't WANT to use anything
>   like GRUB then, yea, the data in the UEFI can theoretically
>   boot multiple systems (until M$ decides it shouldn't by
>   adding a few 'poison' bytes somewhere (they'll call it
>   a 'security enhancement')).

When a Windows system updates its kernel it will mess up
the UEFI and you will have to reinstall your boot loader from a
live distro. PCLinux has a script for this called "Redo Bootloader".

bliss-“Nearly any fool can use a GNU/Linux computer. Many do.”
After all here I am... Again.

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

On 2/21/23 5:53 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 21/02/2023 08:39, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> "25B.E866" <25B.E866@noaaba.net> writes:
>>> On 2/19/23 9:21 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>> "25B.R866" <25B.R866@noaaba.net> writes:
>>>>> On 2/18/23 9:21 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>>> "25B.R866" <25B.R866@noaaba.net> writes:
>>>>>>>      Most modern bootable USBs also incorporate
>>>>>>>      a UEFI (a M$ abomination) partition a the
>>>>>>>      very start. You, kinda, CAN fake that with
>>>>>>>      gparted - create a FAT-32 part at the very
>>>>>>>      beginning, but it's not guarenteed to work
>>>>>>>      since special code needs to be loaded INTO
>>>>>>>      the little partition.
>>>>>> It’s an industry-wide design, not unique to Microsoft.
>>>>>     But it was a M$-driven PLOT - mostly to hurt Linux.
>>>> The chip on your shoulder is obscuring your view.
>>>
>>>    Ummmm ... not so SURE about that !  :-)
>>
>> Well, it’s been more than a decade and here I am with Linux on multiple
>> hosts with secure boot enabled. When is this supposed plot going to pay
>> off?

When they WANT it to ! :-)

WHY do all boards have UEFI and "secure boot" and
such these days - when it all worked perfectly
well before ? Because M$ *told* them to. If M$
wants it - they GET it. Their history DOES suggest
evil intents .........

>>>    Keep an eye on the evolution of "secure boot"
>>>    setups too - M$ is in a position to decree that
>>>    Linux is 'insecure' and most board/bios makers
>>>    will follow them, not even let Linux boot - no
>>>    M$ signature, no go, no way around. That's the
>>>    future I see .....
>>
>> That hypothetical requires a lot of organisations to leave an awful lot
>> of money on the table.

M$ has *vast* amounts of money and lawyers and the
gravity of its user base .......

>> * Microsoft lose more than half their cloud service (the fastest-growing
>>    part of their business).

Even rich companies can screw up ...

>> * Any board manufacturer stupid enough to go along with it loses
>>    somewhere around half their server business.  The rest get dollar
>>    signs in their eyes as they pick up the impacted customers.
>>
>> * Competition authorities round the world start fining every business
>>    responsible.
>>
>>>    Gates and friends left the "computing/systems
>>>    for all" way of thinking LONG ago.
>>
>> Gates isn’t running MS, which has changed considerably since the 1990s.
>>
>
> I think so. Basically what seems to be happening from my rather detached
> perspective these days, is that the further down the users  IQ scale you
> go, the more IT is geared towards (someone else's) cloud operation and
> touch screen / audio command driven devices.

That's where the money is - kind of a return to the
old client/server model where they can BILL per-unit
of whatever you consume. Most people never even think
about it - just goes on their credit card. Check out
the latest figures for CC debt though ..... a looming
disaster ............

> There simply isn't  that much money in desktop systems any more, and
> indeed there  is some doubt that the main office productivity stuff -
> writing and printing paper - actually needs be done on a traditional PC
> at all.
>
> Arguably the money is in cloud *services* and web or at least internet
> based apps running on whatever is appropriate.
>
> Since a web browser is a fairly ubiquitous input device, corporates can
> build their own, or outsource their own, cloud, and leave the employees
> using whatever works on their (increasingly at home) desktops.
>
> There simply isn't/wont be the money in a windows desktop any more.
> Servers are where its at and JavaScript and Java style distributed apps.
>
> Only highly technical programs like CAD CAM  or creative suites like
> Adobe whatever still need a desktop style OS, and this is a limited market.
>
> Home PCS are over. Its a tablet or a games console.
> Office PCS are largely over. As is the office itself.

Um ... I'd kinda disagree there. Offices are making
a post-covid return now and tiny little phones/tablets
are NOT a substitute for a desktop with 32-inch screens.

> MSDROSS never worked well as a server anyway..
>
> So Microsoft has to undergo the sort of transformation that IBM did when
> it realised that operating systems and hardware cost money but what made
> money was software, training and support.

IBM still sells mainframes - AND the support for them.
What's "old" often STILL has a niche.

> My bet is that Windows will in the end be just another Linux distro with
> legacy library hooks to run Winders apps.
>

On 21/02/2023 19:12, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2023-02-21, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 21/02/2023 02:53, 25B.E866 wrote:
>>
>>>   Keep an eye on the evolution of "secure boot"
>>>   setups too - M$ is in a position to decree that
>>>   Linux is 'insecure' and most board/bios makers
>>>   will follow them, not even let Linux boot - no
>>>   M$ signature, no go, no way around. That's the
>>>   future I see .....
>
> Microsoft's dream for UEFI was to turn it into a device
> that makes it impossible to boot anything but Windows.
> Fortunately the open source community was resourceful
> enough to quickly derail that plan.
>
>>>   Gates and friends left the "computing/systems
>>>   for all" way of thinking LONG ago.
>>
>> I am not sure Gates did, but the guy who basically took over the
>> marketing was a massively nasty piece of work.
>
> Only marginally less nasty than Gates, who was enough
> of a bastard that other companies were becoming reluctant
> to deal with Microsoft.
>
>> But then you have to understand that standardisation by monopoly rather
>> than by mutual agreement - as in the case of Linux or TCP/IP - is still
>> a good thing in that everybody knows what they need to do to make a
>> working system.
>
> As long as you don't mind having all architectural decisions and
> supply chains being dictated by the monopolist, now and forever.
>
>> Historians will, no doubt, argue for millennia of whether the 'wrong'
>> standard early is or was better than the 'right' standard later.
>
> Still, don't you wish the 680x0 won out over the 80x86,
> or that Gary Kildall was home when IBM came to call?
>

Actually, with hindsight, no not really.
What MSDOS anfd WINDERS made plain, to all except OS acolytes, is that
what people want are applications, not operating systems.

Sure WINDERS is like a steam engine and cart springs, BUT everyone built
a body for it.

--
“Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

- John K Galbraith

On 2023-02-22 07:38, 25B.E866 wrote:
> On 2/21/23 5:53 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 21/02/2023 08:39, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> "25B.E866" <25B.E866@noaaba.net> writes:
>>>> On 2/19/23 9:21 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>> "25B.R866" <25B.R866@noaaba.net> writes:
>>>>>> On 2/18/23 9:21 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>>>>> "25B.R866" <25B.R866@noaaba.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>      Most modern bootable USBs also incorporate
>>>>>>>>      a UEFI (a M$ abomination) partition a the
>>>>>>>>      very start. You, kinda, CAN fake that with
>>>>>>>>      gparted - create a FAT-32 part at the very
>>>>>>>>      beginning, but it's not guarenteed to work
>>>>>>>>      since special code needs to be loaded INTO
>>>>>>>>      the little partition.
>>>>>>> It’s an industry-wide design, not unique to Microsoft.
>>>>>>     But it was a M$-driven PLOT - mostly to hurt Linux.
>>>>> The chip on your shoulder is obscuring your view.
>>>>
>>>>    Ummmm ... not so SURE about that !  :-)
>>>
>>> Well, it’s been more than a decade and here I am with Linux on multiple
>>> hosts with secure boot enabled. When is this supposed plot going to pay
>>> off?
>
>
>   When they WANT it to !  :-)
>
>   WHY do all boards have UEFI and "secure boot" and
>   such these days - when it all worked perfectly
>   well before ? Because M$ *told* them to. If M$
>   wants it - they GET it. Their history DOES suggest
>   evil intents .........

No, it hasn't.

There were vulnerabilities out there, exploited, perverting the boot
process. Specially on corporate environments. They also need methods
blocking employees from booting anything else but the provided by their
IT department software.

I will not say that UEFI and secure boot solve the issue. I do not know.
But it is the right direction.

And in fact UEFI makes multibooting easier.

And no, M$ can not block other oses. Not in Europe, at least. It may
happen in a particular computer make, so just buy a different one.

....
--
Cheers, Carlos.

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
> On 2023-02-22 07:38, 25B.E866 wrote:
>>   WHY do all boards have UEFI and "secure boot" and
>>   such these days - when it all worked perfectly
>>   well before ? Because M$ *told* them to. If M$
>>   wants it - they GET it. Their history DOES suggest
>>   evil intents .........
>
>
> No, it hasn't.
>
> There were vulnerabilities out there, exploited, perverting the boot
> process. Specially on corporate environments. They also need methods
> blocking employees from booting anything else but the provided by
> their IT department software.

Quite. Boot sectors viruses used to be ubiquitous.

> I will not say that UEFI and secure boot solve the issue. I do not
> know. But it is the right direction.

Yes. It’s

> And in fact UEFI makes multibooting easier.
>
> And no, M$ can not block other oses. Not in Europe, at least. It may
> happen in a particular computer make, so just buy a different one.

Indeed they cooperate in booting non-MS operating systems. Guess who
signed the UEFI shim used to boot Linux securely.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On 2/23/23 8:16 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>> On 2023-02-22 07:38, 25B.E866 wrote:
>>>   WHY do all boards have UEFI and "secure boot" and
>>>   such these days - when it all worked perfectly
>>>   well before ? Because M$ *told* them to. If M$
>>>   wants it - they GET it. Their history DOES suggest
>>>   evil intents .........
>>
>>
>> No, it hasn't.
>>
>> There were vulnerabilities out there, exploited, perverting the boot
>> process. Specially on corporate environments. They also need methods
>> blocking employees from booting anything else but the provided by
>> their IT department software.
>
> Quite. Boot sectors viruses used to be ubiquitous.

And they went away long before UEFI/secure-boot - because
they were easy to detect/exterminate.

>> I will not say that UEFI and secure boot solve the issue. I do not
>> know. But it is the right direction.
>
> Yes. It’s
>
>> And in fact UEFI makes multibooting easier.
>>
>> And no, M$ can not block other oses. Not in Europe, at least. It may
>> happen in a particular computer make, so just buy a different one.

What about everybody NOT in Europe ???

And, as we've seen, M$ has the leverage/gravity to
induce board/bios makers cater to its whims.

> Indeed they cooperate in booting non-MS operating systems. Guess who
> signed the UEFI shim used to boot Linux securely.

And when they stop signing it ?

Sorry, M$ went evil a long time ago. Expect
the worst.

"25B.E866" <25B.E866@noaaba.net> writes:
> On 2/23/23 8:16 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>>> And no, M$ can not block other oses. Not in Europe, at least. It may
>>> happen in a particular computer make, so just buy a different one.
>
> What about everybody NOT in Europe ???
>
> And, as we've seen, M$ has the leverage/gravity to
> induce board/bios makers cater to its whims.

See other post.

>> Indeed they cooperate in booting non-MS operating systems. Guess who
>> signed the UEFI shim used to boot Linux securely.
>
> And when they stop signing it ?

Then you install your own keys, or turn off secure boot entirely.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On 2023-02-24 03:27, 25B.E866 wrote:
> On 2/23/23 8:16 AM, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>>> On 2023-02-22 07:38, 25B.E866 wrote:
>>>>     WHY do all boards have UEFI and "secure boot" and
>>>>     such these days - when it all worked perfectly
>>>>     well before ? Because M$ *told* them to. If M$
>>>>     wants it - they GET it. Their history DOES suggest
>>>>     evil intents .........
>>>
>>>
>>> No, it hasn't.
>>>
>>> There were vulnerabilities out there, exploited, perverting the boot
>>> process. Specially on corporate environments. They also need methods
>>> blocking employees from booting anything else but the provided by
>>> their IT department software.
>>
>> Quite. Boot sectors viruses used to be ubiquitous.
>
>
>   And they went away long before UEFI/secure-boot - because
>   they were easy to detect/exterminate.

Not really, they are used to subvert corporate machines.

>
>
>
>>> I will not say that UEFI and secure boot solve the issue. I do not
>>> know. But it is the right direction.
>>
>> Yes. It’s
>>
>>> And in fact UEFI makes multibooting easier.
>>>
>>> And no, M$ can not block other oses. Not in Europe, at least. It may
>>> happen in a particular computer make, so just buy a different one.
>
>   What about everybody NOT in Europe ???
>
>   And, as we've seen, M$ has the leverage/gravity to
>   induce board/bios makers cater to its whims.
>
>> Indeed they cooperate in booting non-MS operating systems. Guess who
>> signed the UEFI shim used to boot Linux securely.
>
>   And when they stop signing it ?
>
>   Sorry, M$ went evil a long time ago. Expect
>   the worst.

Then roll your own key.

--
Cheers, Carlos.