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.
Thread beginning with comment 490553
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Threat to Microsoft, too
by zztaz on Sat 24th Sep 2011 01:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Threat to Microsoft, too"
zztaz
Member since:
2006-09-16

Feel free to pick another example. I'll take your word that Sony's laptop group won't do this, but the parent corporation has demonstrated their willingness to harm Sony customers. All it would take is a new head for that division.

The point remains: Microsoft is leaving the door open for OEMs to handle secure booting in ways that could harm Windows users as well as Linux users. Some OEM will do so. It doesn't matter whether it's Sony or someone else. Microsoft isn't going to listen to Linux users. They might listen to Windows users. Help me convince Windows users that they should be concerned about the way this UEFI feature is implemented. By the way, it is a useful feature, but only if it's done right.

I'm tired of short-sighted people saying that they don't care about some issue because it doesn't affect them. Yes it does. Don't tell me that you don't care about Firefox because you use IE. The only reason IE exists is because Netscape existed. Once Netscape ceased to be a threat, IE stagnated. As soon as Firefox came about, IE resumed improving. You don't need to use something to benefit from its existence.

If the stupidity of OEMs allows Microsoft to gain an effective lock-in on some hardware, that hurts everyone. It hurts people who buy non-crippled hardware, because they have fewer choices. It hurts Windows users because it gives Microsoft one more reason to ignore Windows users; if your hardware only runs Windows, why should Microsoft listen to you? You're stuck running Windows no matter how they treat you.

Reply Parent Score: 7