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 490705
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:


"As I said ... there will be shitty manufacturers that would give you this option ... where they don't care about their customers ... and there will be those that do. That is my answer to your question."

No, you didn't answer my questions.

I get the impression that you don't care that secure boot has the potential to harm linux adoption. If that is your opinion, then ok, you are part of the majority of people who may very well remain unaffected by this change. It is true that linux users are a fraction of the market.

However, you cannot reasonably dismiss the concerns of hardcoding MS keys into the bios on behalf of those of us who are regular linux users at home. We are the ones affected by this change, even if you are not. We don't want artificially restricted hardware, new or used, that prevents us from running our OS of choice. The vast majority of us started by running linux on a previously windows machine. Microsoft still hasn't addressed whether dual booting will be possible. It isn't at all unreasonable for us to object when our interests are at stake, even though yours are not.

I'll ask once again: If it were up to you to design an ideal secure boot feature, would you design secure boot by hardcoding exclusive MS/OEM keys into it? Or would you enable the owner to override those keys?

Seeing as you keep avoiding the question, I'll take the liberty of answering it for you: It depends on who the feature is being designed to protect, microsoft or the owner.

Reply Parent Score: 3