undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmistrial92y ago0 comments

OK - try an LUbuntu Install disk for 22.04; run the installer, after Welcome,Location,Keyboard in the Partition task, create a new Partition Table; make a new disk partition, see the list of available partition types, choose ext4; see FLAGS [apple-tv-recovery,bios-grub,boot,diag,hidden,hpservice,lba,legacy-boot,lvm,msft-data,msft-reserved,palo,prep,raid,root,swap]

0 comments

k8svet2y ago

Those are standard partition types that have existed for decades.

bravetraveler2y ago

That's from 'parted', the disk utility - not Canonical, Ubuntu, or even Microsoft

Best I can tell support for the 'res' type has existed at least since 2006; search for 'msft': https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=parted.git;a=commitdi...

Then in 2012 it was... an individual and Red Hat who introduced the 'msftdata' flag: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=parted.git;a=commitdi...

I don't get the insinuation, it conflates things that span at least a decade. It sucks that Microsoft is where they are in secure boot... but one can manage their own policies/keys.

Support is a good thing, nobody is forced to use secure boot or things signed by Microsoft.

mistrial9OP2y ago

> Support is a good thing, nobody is forced to use secure boot or things signed by Microsoft.

ok it is true that these partition types are older than I previously assumed.. but the statement about "forced to use secure boot" .. that is not true at all, yes lots of devices are forced to use UEFI secure boot. In fact, a quote from a Debian derivative recently stated "we use a kernel from Canonical to support booting a wider range of devices" .. because they just want to do that? no one is making them do that? really, the market truth of laptops and cloud VMs is requiring UEFI in a calculated way, with the keys being issued and managed centrally from MSFT. info welcome

bravetraveler2y ago

Is it commonplace for laptops to not allow disabling Secure Boot? I work with desktops and big iron; it's entirely optional here.

Even in clouds - it's optional based on your compliance goals/requirements. 90% of the time it's KVM/QEMU with an API. Secure boot isn't slowly taking that scene over either, it's still optional support.

I really don't get the impression that we're losing control over our boot processes. We use the things signed by MS because it's convenient and the average user can't be bothered to do their own enrollment.

I see how this can be "boiling the frog", in a sense, but it's a bit close to conspiracy for me.

mistrial9OP2y ago

yes It Is commonplace for laptops to not allow disabling Secure Boot .. one recent low-end laptop did not allow booting from any device except the soldered-in boot disk, which used only UEFI and signing keys.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

k8svet2y ago

Those are standard partition types that have existed for decades.

bravetraveler2y ago

That's from 'parted', the disk utility - not Canonical, Ubuntu, or even Microsoft

Best I can tell support for the 'res' type has existed at least since 2006; search for 'msft': https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=parted.git;a=commitdi...

Then in 2012 it was... an individual and Red Hat who introduced the 'msftdata' flag: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=parted.git;a=commitdi...

I don't get the insinuation, it conflates things that span at least a decade. It sucks that Microsoft is where they are in secure boot... but one can manage their own policies/keys.

Support is a good thing, nobody is forced to use secure boot or things signed by Microsoft.

mistrial9OP2y ago

> Support is a good thing, nobody is forced to use secure boot or things signed by Microsoft.

bravetraveler2y ago

Is it commonplace for laptops to not allow disabling Secure Boot? I work with desktops and big iron; it's entirely optional here.

I see how this can be "boiling the frog", in a sense, but it's a bit close to conspiracy for me.

mistrial9OP2y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse