Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230
Side note:
I wonder when (if ever) we'll see an update for broken UEFI specs - what a moron have released a standard which breaks booting from RAID arrays? Even 30 years old 16-bit BIOS allows to do this... ...but now we have a SecureBoot - wow!
The only problem is that SecureBoot itself is a problem, and it does not add a single bit of security against modern attacks...
Bill Gates: "(...) In my case, I went to the garbage cans at the Computer Science Center and I fished out listings of their operating system." The_full_story and Nothing_have_changed
The main reason for SecureBoot was not to increase security (at least not what we understand as "security"): the intention was to ensure that computers would not boot Linux anymore. And indeed: as soon as it was introduced and Microsoft bribed computer manufacturers who wanted to include Windows to make the "optional" SecureBoot locked on enabled without allowing the user to switch it off, Linux could not be booted anymore. Since most Linux distributions didn't have SecureBoot authentication keys at that time, it proved detrimental to Linux on such machines.
Now, the point is moot since most Linux distributions can boot with SecureBoot. But, like almost anything programmed by Microsoft, it is riddled with bugs that plague UEFI users from time to time. And you can have lots of fun with hardware that is not compliant with the UEFI standard.
Bloom wrote:The main reason for SecureBoot was not to increase security (at least not what we understand as "security"): the intention was to ensure that computers would not boot Linux anymore.
Then why are Microsoft happy to provide their signing keys to Linux distributions? There is a fee but it's set to $99 so they're not really making any money from it.
Secure Boot was introduced in an attempt to compensate for the massive added attack surface provided by the UEFI standard.
Any discussion about Secure Boot is off-topic for this thread so please open a new one to discuss the issues further. Thanks.
LE_746F6D617A7A69 wrote:I wonder when (if ever) we'll see an update for broken UEFI specs - what a moron have released a standard which breaks booting from RAID arrays?
I guess you mean software Linux RAID ? AFAICS GRUB is the culprit, not UEFI.
Bill Gates: "(...) In my case, I went to the garbage cans at the Computer Science Center and I fished out listings of their operating system." The_full_story and Nothing_have_changed