Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 4th Feb 2013 22:10 UTC
Google "People are, unsurprisingly, upset that Microsoft have imposed UEFI Secure Boot on the x86 market. A situation in which one company gets to determine which software will boot on systems by default is obviously open to abuse. What's more surprising is that many of the people who are upset about this are completely fine with encouraging people to buy Chromebooks. Out of the box, Chromebooks are even more locked down than Windows 8 machines." Good point.
Permalink for comment 551481
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Ironic Title
by Alfman on Tue 5th Feb 2013 06:03 UTC
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

The title is ironic because it implies only those who dislike secure boot have an issue, but it sounds like the chromebook gives the most trouble to users who'd actually want to have secure boot enabled while using a 3rd party OS.

This is one of the cases that I feared would happen, in fact most problems with secure boot were foreseen. The reality is that the feature was designed to be used by venders and not the end users, this really shows.

For an open standard like UEFI, owner control ought to have been *expressly* possible. It's disgraceful that the standard didn't require compliant implementations to enable owners to take control over their own hardware keys as they want to. As it stands, there's no requirement for owners to have access to their own hardware keys and it's only by the graces of anti-trust threats that Wintel owners have largely avoided a skirmish.

I hope there's enough public outcry on non-wintel platforms to pressure all vendors to open up Secure Boot on their respective platforms as well. Google, for it's part, is going to find itself in a tossup between it's role in standing up for open principals or behaving more like OS/hardware vendors who want to lock out end users & competitors.

Reply Score: 7