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 490733
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: What to do about this...
by Alfman on Sun 25th Sep 2011 22:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What to do about this..."
Member since:


"right... because secure boot is an attempt to stifle Linux in the market place rather than Microsoft offering customers the ability to lock their systems down at a hardware level so device drivers cannot be used ti infiltrate a network."

This is possible but it's not what I believe to be the intent of secure boot. I believe the secure boot design points to an intent of keeping owners from being able to jailbreak the walled garden that MS is about to introduce with win8.

Microsoft has not really answered the question of whether win8 will be restricted or at all bootable without secure boot enabled. Maybe I am wrong and MS isn't going to use this for DRM. But until they come out and indicate otherwise, I think DRM is the whole motivation for pushing secure boot. This is why secure boot is designed to keep keys out of the hands of computer owners (which logically we would have if DRM were not the intent).

The linux/otheros dual booting issues (if they turn out to be well founded as Garrett claims) will just be a convenient side effect for microsoft. They will claim that OEMs are responsible for approving alternative operating systems for secure boot, which is true. However MS are not dumb, they fully understand that few if any of the many thousands of OSS developers will manage to get their compiled binaries signed by all OEM keys, and this will result in linux becoming less reliable on the desktop.

Edited 2011-09-25 22:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3