Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 19:34 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Hardware, Embedded Systems A big issue right now in the world of operating systems - especially Linux - is Microsoft's requirement that all Windows 8 machines ship with UEFI's secure boot enabled, with no requirement that OEMs implement it so users can turn it off. This has caused some concern in the Linux world, and considering Microsoft's past and current business practices and the incompetence of OEMs, that's not unwarranted. CNet's Ed Bott decided to pose the issue to OEMs. Dell stated is has plans to include the option to turn secure boot off, while HP was a bit more vague about the issue.
Permalink for comment 496250
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Ok, let's be fair
by ilovebeer on Mon 7th Nov 2011 01:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ok, let's be fair"
Member since:

Overlooking possible anti-trust violations, you're absolutely right, however this simply does not dismiss our concerns.

We don't know what the secure boot facts are yet and therefore no anti-trust issues are in play. Regardless, it's the OEM who will decide how secure boot behaves, not Microsoft.

how does this justify locking down the keys to favor microsoft?

This is not fact, it's baseless speculation. Until the facts are presented, be cautious how much you let your mind wander.

This only holds if the restrictions are made clear at the point of sale. My point about fragmentation of the alternative OS ecosystem still holds. And in any case it still doesn't justify secure boot being designed to lock out the owner's control over keys.

I absolutely believe any such restrictions should be made clear at the point of sale. Regardless, key management restrictions don't need to be justified. IF it turns out owners won't have control of this, so what. The user is buying a prebuilt system with a specific design and intent. If that's not in agreement with the users needs, the user should not buy the system. You can't escape this simple fact.

I'm asking questions like everyone else because I am concerned about the migration to closed computing. Please quote specifically what you believe to be unjustified FUD. If you don't have the answers either, then why do you seek to dismiss my questions?

I have no problem with people asking questions. However, those questions should at least be based in reality with factual supporting evidence so the questions have some sort of valid basis. To make baseless wild accusations is reckless at best. It serves only to spread fear, not focus on real world world issues.

You can say that about any business with questionable ethics, however it doesn't answer our questions nor does it ameliorate our concerns. Even assuming these restrictions are entirely legal, it does not absolve them of public criticism.

Again, your questions thus far have had no basis in reality. They're the product of imagination, nothing more. You can dream up as many nightmare scenarios as you like but you can't expect anyone to take them seriously if you can't provide any actual evidence there's real world concern.

As far as criticism, ... Yeah, go for it, no problem there. As long as you understand the difference between an opinion and making baseless accusations.

Like I said, you can blame the user as much as you like, but you can't deny that it is anti-competitive and potentially kills off one of the primary modes of adoption for alternate operating systems. Therefor it is a legitimate concern.

It is not Microsoft's job, nor the OEM's job, to provide Linux migration paths. OEM's opting to add "Designed for Windows 8" systems to their product offerings does not take away the users ability to purchase or build a non-"Designed for Windows 8" system. Choice has not, is not, and will not be removed from the equation.

Again, even if you are right, it doesn't answer our questions and it doesn't dismiss our concerns at all. The secure boot spec still deserves criticism for being anti-competitive. As much as you want to see this through microsoft goggles, this is bigger than them. It's about recognizing that consumers benefit from open computing, and recognizing that incremental attempts to lock us out of our own machines have detrimental cumulative long term consequences, regardless of who instigates it.

Concerns are fine but for them to be taken seriously they should have a basis in reality. Yet again, something your concerns don't have.

I agree, a secure boot spec should be thoroughly reviewed and criticized. And you should accurately address those who are actually implementing it, which is not Microsoft.

I don't wear Microsoft google... I simply don't share your not-based-in-reality paranoia. I focus my attention on fact while you focus your attention on whatever your imagination has conjured up. I want to talk about things that actually exist, and you want to talk about things that don't exist. The only way we'll see eye-to-eye is if your fantasy becomes reality, or you just come back to reality.

Reply Parent Score: 1