Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 22:22 UTC, submitted by kragil
Windows The story about how secure boot for Windows 8, part of UEFI, will hinder the use of non-signed binaries and operating systems, like Linux, has registered at Redmond as well. The company posted about it on the Building Windows 8 blog - but didn't take any of the worries away. In fact, Red Hat's Matthew Garrett, who originally broke this story, has some more information - worst of which is that Red Hat has received confirmation from hardware vendors that some of them will not allow you to disable secure boot.
Permalink for comment 490639
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Oh Thom you spin a good yarn
by rklrkl on Sat 24th Sep 2011 19:34 UTC in reply to "Oh Thom you spin a good yarn"
Member since:

Interesting how you didn't quote the Microsoft blog's statement:

"OEMs are free to choose how to enable this [Secure Boot] support..."

In other words, Microsoft are letting the OEMs decide whether to include a "disable secure boot" in the UEFI BIOS. It's a bit surprising that the UEFI standard didn't actually insist that the user should always be able to disable secure boot (I don't care if it's enabled by default, but I do care if it can't be disabled).

If Microsoft will indeed insist that the secure boot can't be disabled for OEMs to qualify for the Windows 8 certification logo, then *all* OEMs will do so and those machines won't be able use any other OS than Windows 8 or later. You can be guaranteed that OEMs won't advertise the fact that you can only run Windows 8 or later on their latest kit either, since that's surely a negative selling point?

As people have said, this will potentially impact Windows users too - no XP, Vista or Windows 7 on those new machines and bang goes third-party rescue CDs (you'll be forced to use MS'es signed rescue disks and no others).

There are surely anti-trust issues if Microsoft effectively force OEMs to only allow Windows to be installed on machines, even after the end-user has bought the machine and taken it home? It's a clear monopoly abuse because although MS might claim OEMs had a clear choice, the logo certification program insisting on secure boot not being able to be disabled is a major influence in the OEMs decision.

Reply Parent Score: 5