Use GParted to make bootable USB

Not easily. It is rather complex, actually.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Robert Heller

2023-02-15 22:11:26 UTC

Post by v***@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com
Since I haven't been able to get quantian (knoppix 4) to install from DVD
(because of ATA/SATA/UEFI issues) maybe I could put it on a USB.
Instead of getting and using RUFUS, since i alread have GParted,
is there a way to do this?
I haven't seen any obvious options in the menu other than the "boot" switch
on defining a partition.. so while I suspect this is what i need, it would be
smoother if I had better instructions. All my searches turn up how to put
GParted on a bootable USB instead.

If you have the ISO image file, you can just use dd to copy it directly to the
USB thumb drive. You don't need to mess with GParted to make a bootable USB
thumb drive -- the ISO image files are already set up as bootable, from either
optical media (DVD/CD) or a USB thumb drive.

--
Robert Heller -- Cell: 413-658-7953 GV: 978-633-5364
Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services
***@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services

Bobbie Sellers

2023-02-16 00:34:15 UTC

Post by Robert Heller

Most up to date Live Linux iso files will have GPartEd as a usuable
part of the live system. Including Knoppix 9.1 and my
favorite PCLlinuxOS

bliss - on the ever-faithful Dell Latitude E7450, PCLinuxOS 2022
KDE Plasma 5.27.0 Kernel Version: 6.1.12-pclos1 (64-bit)
KDE Frameworks 5.102.0 - Qt Version: 5.15.6
Graphics : X11 - Mesa Intel® HD Graphics 5500
15.5 GiB of RAM CPU 4 × Intel® Core™ i7-5600U CPU @ 2.60GHz
Actually 2 real & 2 virtual cores.

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

Anssi Saari

2023-02-16 08:59:56 UTC

Post by Robert Heller
If you have the ISO image file, you can just use dd to copy it directly to the
USB thumb drive. You don't need to mess with GParted to make a bootable USB
thumb drive -- the ISO image files are already set up as bootable, from either
optical media (DVD/CD) or a USB thumb drive.

I don't think this is really a sure thing for a 16 or 17 year old
tweaked Knoppix release? A quick look says the latest Quantian was
released March 1, 2006 and it's based on Knoppix 4 from 2005.

I can't remember when ISOs became hybrids that you can just dd to USB
stick or burn to DVD and boot from either but I think it was later than
2005. I remember in 2004 the ability to boot from USB wasn't a given by
any means. I only remember as I had a motherboard then which was really
picky about that.

David W. Hodgins

2023-02-16 01:11:32 UTC

To check to see if an iso image is bootable from a usb device, rather the just
from an optical drive use "od -N 512 -x filename.iso". If it shows the last 4
hex characters are aa55 then the iso image is made to be bootable from a usb
device.

If the last for hex characters are not aa55 (boot signature), make a copy, then
modify the copy using "isohybrid filename.iso". The isohybrid command is from
the syslinux package. See https://wiki.syslinux.org/wiki/index.php?title=Download
if your distribution doesn't have it packaged.

Once you have an iso image with the boot signature at the end of the first 512
bytes copy it to a usb device, using a tool that does a byte for byte copy without
modifications, from the iso file to the usb device (not a partition on the device).
Any existing data on the usb device including a partition table if already present
will be overwritten.

Using dd it would be (as root) run "dd if=filename.iso of=/dev/sdz bs=1M". Replace
sdz with the device name of the usb device. Don't use a partition such as sdz1.

Be very careful to make sure the correct device (of= parameter) is specified so
you don't erase your hard drive.

Mageia linux has a gui package (isodumper) that lists the available usb devices
for selection (with a warning if the selected usb device is large) to make it
easier to ensure the right device is selected for writing. There are probably
other similar tools in other distributions.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

25B.R866

2023-02-18 08:38:20 UTC

Gparted is NOT the right tool for that.

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.

Use one of the other popular utilities to put
yer image on the USB - or you can 'dd' it ...

'sudo dd if=/home/fred/MyImage.img of=/dev/sdd bs=64k' ...
that's the basics but 'status=progress' will let you see
what's progressing.

"bs" means "block-size" ...but, really, once
you get to about 1k there's little improvement
in speed. I've checked it.

Balina Etcher is very user friendly - downloads
as an executable - but there are a few others,
just search. I almost always use Balina. If you
are using Winder a lot (WHY ???) then 'Rufus'
is also very good.

The Natural Philosopher

2023-02-18 09:59:17 UTC

Gparted is NOT the right tool for that.

I just followed directions on the MINT site to make a bootable USB drive.

It is quite complicated.

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.

In my case it appears to be a directory, not a partition

Use one of the other popular utilities to put
yer image on the USB - or you can 'dd' it ...

Mint recommends USB Image Writer or Etcher.

'sudo dd if=/home/fred/MyImage.img of=/dev/sdd bs=64k' ...
that's the basics but 'status=progress' will let you see
what's progressing.
"bs" means "block-size" ...but, really, once
you get to about 1k there's little improvement
in speed. I've checked it.
Balina Etcher is very user friendly - downloads
as an executable - but there are a few others,
just search. I almost always use Balina. If you
are using Winder a lot (WHY ???) then 'Rufus'
is also very good.

Yup. These take care of all the UEFI bollocks.

--
“It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into,
we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every
criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a
power-directed system of thought.”
Sir Roger Scruton

25B.R866

2023-02-19 03:04:20 UTC

Gparted is NOT the right tool for that.

I just followed directions on the MINT site to make a bootable USB drive.
It is quite complicated.

   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.

In my case it appears to be a directory, not a partition

Interesting .... I've never seen it as a directory
per-se - it's always a 100m-500m FAT-32 partition
that's the very first one on the drive. Perhaps
your setup is "presenting" it as a dir, pcmanfm
will - and any other parts on the drive. They appear
in the left-hand menu. It's *really* a "mountable
partition" though. Click and it mounts somewhere.

Use one of the other popular utilities to put
yer image on the USB - or you can 'dd' it ...

Mint recommends USB Image Writer or Etcher.

   'sudo dd if=/home/fred/MyImage.img of=/dev/sdd bs=64k' ...
   that's the basics but 'status=progress' will let you see
   what's progressing.
   "bs" means "block-size" ...but, really, once
   you get to about 1k there's little improvement
   in speed. I've checked it.
   Balina Etcher is very user friendly - downloads
   as an executable - but there are a few others,
   just search. I almost always use Balina. If you
   are using Winder a lot (WHY ???) then 'Rufus'
   is also very good.

Yup. These take care of all the UEFI bollocks.

I'd stick with Etcher and Rufus for now. The get
it done perfectly with minimal BS. However if
you want a Linux bootable USB stick with *persistence*
it might be worth checking some of the brand-x
burners instead.

David W. Hodgins

2023-02-19 04:34:05 UTC

Post by 25B.R866
I'd stick with Etcher and Rufus for now. The get
it done perfectly with minimal BS. However if
you want a Linux bootable USB stick with *persistence*
it might be worth checking some of the brand-x
burners instead.

Be aware that for iso images that are already set up to boot from a usb drive
(i.e. hybrid iso images) dd mode must be used when using rufus.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

The Natural Philosopher

2023-02-19 11:25:52 UTC

Gparted is NOT the right tool for that.

I just followed directions on the MINT site to make a bootable USB drive.
It is quite complicated.

   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.

In my case it appears to be a directory, not a partition

My bad, I assumed because it was not mounted on a root directory it
wasn't a separate partition.

It is of course a FAT partition all in its own right.
HOWEVER My bootable stick contains it at two locations - there is a
16bit FAT partition AND a subdirectory on the EXT4 root partition of the
bootable USB stick.

It would seem that at some level the same data resides in a
subdirectory on the main drive that is in fact overmounted by the FAT
partition.

I am not the expert here. Perhaps Mr Kettlewell will provide chapter and
verse

--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

Carlos E.R.

2023-02-19 11:50:59 UTC

Gparted is NOT the right tool for that.

I just followed directions on the MINT site to make a bootable USB drive.
It is quite complicated.

   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.

In my case it appears to be a directory, not a partition

   Interesting .... I've never seen it as a directory
   per-se - it's always a 100m-500m FAT-32 partition
   that's the very first one on the drive. Perhaps
   your setup is "presenting" it as a dir, pcmanfm
   will - and any other parts on the drive. They appear
   in the left-hand menu. It's *really* a "mountable
   partition" though. Click and it mounts somewhere.

No, that seems some error by the people that made that bootable stick.
Possibly they copied the files to /boot/efi/ before the partition was
mounted. Then they mounted it, and copied the files again. As the files
in the directory are then invisible, they were not deleted.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Richard Kettlewell

2023-02-19 14:30:05 UTC

Post by The Natural Philosopher
My bad, I assumed because it was not mounted on a root directory it
wasn't a separate partition.
It is of course a FAT partition all in its own right.
HOWEVER My bootable stick contains it at two locations - there is a
16bit FAT partition AND a subdirectory on the EXT4 root partition of
the bootable USB stick.

No, that seems some error by the people that made that bootable
stick. Possibly they copied the files to /boot/efi/ before the
partition was mounted. Then they mounted it, and copied the files
again. As the files in the directory are then invisible, they were not
deleted.

Nod. Another possible source of confusion is that the ESP’s point could
be called /efi or /boot/efi, but it contains a directory called EFI
within it; and also, other boot files (that don’t need to live in the
ESP) live in their own directory (which might or might not be its own
filesystem).

Concrete example, on a couple of Debian stable platforms I have:

$ find /boot/efi/
/boot/efi/
/boot/efi/EFI
/boot/efi/EFI/debian
/boot/efi/EFI/debian/shimx64.efi
/boot/efi/EFI/debian/grubx64.efi
/boot/efi/EFI/debian/mmx64.efi
/boot/efi/EFI/debian/fbx64.efi
/boot/efi/EFI/debian/BOOTX64.CSV
/boot/efi/EFI/debian/grub.cfg
$ grep /boot/efi /proc/mounts
/dev/sda1 /boot/efi vfat rw,relatime,fmask=0022,dmask=0022,codepage=437,iocharset=ascii,shortname=mixed,utf8,errors=remount-ro 0 0

/boot meanwhile is just part of / and contains the Linux kernel, initrd,
etc.

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

Carlos E.R.

2023-02-18 11:29:17 UTC

Gparted can create the ESP (not UEFI) partition if you use the right
options.

ESP: EFI System partition

What you want inside it is not the responsibility of the partitioner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFI_system_partition

--
Cheers, Carlos.

25B.R866

2023-02-19 03:15:05 UTC

Gparted can create the ESP (not UEFI) partition if you use the right
options.
ESP: EFI System partition

EFI is just one 'official names' for the UEFI partition.
I always just call it "UEFI", preceeded by a curse
directed at M$ ....

Post by Carlos E.R.
What you want inside it is not the responsibility of the partitioner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFI_system_partition

No, it's YOUR responsibility - IF you have the time and
energy. On the whole, for all practical uses, just download
a distro that incorporates a UEFI part - which then gets
burnt onto the stick.

Richard Kettlewell

2023-02-18 14:21:25 UTC

Post by 25B.R866
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. 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.

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

25B.R866

2023-02-19 03:24:30 UTC

It’s an industry-wide design, not unique to Microsoft.

But it was a M$-driven PLOT - mostly to hurt Linux.

Post by Richard Kettlewell
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')).

Carlos E.R.

2023-02-19 11:26:05 UTC

   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.

Not really.

M$ would use any technology available to hurt any competitor.

In itself, UEFI is a good thing. And the ESP partition is a good thing.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Richard Kettlewell

2023-02-19 14:21:34 UTC

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.

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

25B.E866

2023-02-21 02:53:10 UTC

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 ! :-)

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 .....

Gates and friends left the "computing/systems
for all" way of thinking LONG ago.

Richard Kettlewell

2023-02-21 08:39:54 UTC

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?

Post by 25B.E866
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.

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

* 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.

Post by 25B.E866
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.

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

The Natural Philosopher

2023-02-21 10:53:17 UTC

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?

That hypothetical requires a lot of organisations to leave an awful lot
of money on the table.
* Microsoft lose more than half their cloud service (the fastest-growing
part of their business).
* 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.

Post by 25B.E866
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.

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.

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.

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

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

Richard Kettlewell

2023-02-21 11:42:23 UTC

Post by Richard Kettlewell
Gates isn’t running MS, which has changed considerably since the 1990s.

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.

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.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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.

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

25B.E866

2023-02-22 06:08:56 UTC

Post by Richard Kettlewell
Gates isn’t running MS, which has changed considerably since the 1990s.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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 :-)

25B.E866

2023-02-22 06:38:06 UTC

     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 .......

Post by Richard Kettlewell
* Microsoft lose more than half their cloud service (the fastest-growing
part of their business).

Even rich companies can screw up ...

Post by Richard Kettlewell
* 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.

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 ............

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
My bet is that Windows will in the end be just another Linux distro with
legacy library hooks to run Winders apps.

Carlos E.R.

2023-02-23 11:15:13 UTC

     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.

Richard Kettlewell

2023-02-23 13:16:27 UTC

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 .........

Quite. Boot sectors viruses used to be ubiquitous.

Post by Carlos E.R.
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

Post by Carlos E.R.
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/

25B.E866

2023-02-24 02:27:34 UTC

Quite. Boot sectors viruses used to be ubiquitous.

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

Post by Carlos E.R.
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

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.

Post by Richard Kettlewell
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.

Richard Kettlewell

2023-02-24 09:20:33 UTC

Post by Carlos E.R.
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.

Post by Richard Kettlewell
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/

Carlos E.R.

2023-02-24 13:03:16 UTC

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.

Post by Carlos E.R.
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

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.

Post by Richard Kettlewell
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.

The Natural Philosopher

2023-02-21 10:38:06 UTC

    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 ! :-)
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 .....
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.

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.
Historians will, no doubt, argue for millennia of whether the 'wrong'
standard early is or was better than the 'right' standard later.

--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

Charlie Gibbs

2023-02-21 19:12:58 UTC

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.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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?

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <***@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

The Natural Philosopher

2023-02-22 13:26:51 UTC

Post by Charlie Gibbs

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 .....

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.

As long as you don't mind having all architectural decisions and
supply chains being dictated by the monopolist, now and forever.

Post by The Natural Philosopher
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

Bobbie Sellers

2023-02-22 06:30:03 UTC