3 ms·

> MSFT_PRIVATE The only evidence I can find of this... Is another comment from you. (Googled: '"MSFT_PRIVATE" partition'. One result.)

by k8svet 3y ago

mistrial9 3y ago
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]
- k8svet 3y ago
  Those are standard partition types that have existed for decades.
- bravetraveler 3y 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=commitdiff;h=232dbda 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=commitdiff;h=e6536360 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.
  - mistrial9 3y 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
    - bravetraveler 3y 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.
      - mistrial9 3y 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.
        k8svet 3y ago
        It's not common, no offense but you clearly have an axe to grind and started out with an incomplete understanding, so [citation needed]. Also, please do name and shame, especially since MICROSOFT MANDATES THAT SECURE BOOT IS DISABLE-ABLE (on x86 devices, anyway, we'll see what happens with Snapdragon X Elite devices).
        mistrial9 3y ago
        let's agree that real surveys of real equipment, with names and model numbers, are a "thing" .. yes
        k8svet 3y ago
        [flagged]
        k8svet 3y ago
        LOL mods. 1. The comment doesn't respond to any claims I made. 2. The comment doesn't do the bare minimum to back up their claims, after spouting already wrong information in this thread. (Sorry, not sorry, but if you're going to complain a device is non-compliant with MS's own SecureBoot requirements, it's really shouldn't be unexpected that someone might ask you to specify which device.) 3. Their comment is pithy, non-responsive, and doesn't advance the conversation in any meaningful way. And mine is the one that gets modded? EDIT: Also, a 22-hour old thread, with a reply getting flagged in <10 minutes. Hmmmmmmmmmm, wonder what that means.

> MSFT_PRIVATE The only evidence I can find of this... Is another comment from you. (Googled: '"MSFT_PRIVATE" partition'. One result.)

by k8svet 3y ago

> MSFT_PRIVATE The only evidence I can find of this... Is another comment from you. (Googled: '"MSFT_PRIVATE" partition'. One result.)

mistrial9 3y ago

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]

k8svet 3y ago
Those are standard partition types that have existed for decades.
bravetraveler 3y 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=commitdiff;h=232dbda 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=commitdiff;h=e6536360 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.
- mistrial9 3y 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
  - bravetraveler 3y 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.
    - mistrial9 3y 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.
      - k8svet 3y ago
        It's not common, no offense but you clearly have an axe to grind and started out with an incomplete understanding, so [citation needed]. Also, please do name and shame, especially since MICROSOFT MANDATES THAT SECURE BOOT IS DISABLE-ABLE (on x86 devices, anyway, we'll see what happens with Snapdragon X Elite devices).
        mistrial9 3y ago
        let's agree that real surveys of real equipment, with names and model numbers, are a "thing" .. yes
        k8svet 3y ago
        [flagged]
        k8svet 3y ago
        LOL mods. 1. The comment doesn't respond to any claims I made. 2. The comment doesn't do the bare minimum to back up their claims, after spouting already wrong information in this thread. (Sorry, not sorry, but if you're going to complain a device is non-compliant with MS's own SecureBoot requirements, it's really shouldn't be unexpected that someone might ask you to specify which device.) 3. Their comment is pithy, non-responsive, and doesn't advance the conversation in any meaningful way. And mine is the one that gets modded? EDIT: Also, a 22-hour old thread, with a reply getting flagged in <10 minutes. Hmmmmmmmmmm, wonder what that means.