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 490638
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Oh Thom you spin a good yarn
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 24th Sep 2011 19:25 UTC in reply to "Oh Thom you spin a good yarn"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

I suggest you actually READ the article before jumping to Microsoft's defence once again, because your post seems to indicate you did nothing even remotely resembling "reading".

Reply Parent Score: 4

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I read the blog post and you article which rallies the Linux crowd.

May I remind you I actually use OpenBSD ... and I buy my OpenBSD CDs.

As another has already said on this forum ... Motherboard manufacturers for OEM systems won't be as foolish as to do this.

I don't rally to Microsoft's defence ...

I was a Linux System Admin for 2 years.
I buy OpenBSD CDs to donate to the project.
I use an Android Phone.
I use Fedora 15 for my media box.
I use Windows 7 on My girlfriends laptop and my own desktop.

What I am fed up with ... is the constant Microsoft Bashing which is like the Zerg rush on every Website that is tech orientated.

I am a pragmatist and I use whatever works. Though I was initially worried about the announcement I waited patiently to actually know WTF was going on before getting upset.

If Microsoft do indeed threaten OEMs to remove the "disable Secure boot" option ... there will be in another anti trust case.

If OEMs stop you from disabling it ... then don't buy that hardware.

At the end of the day we are a fringe case and we are far more tech savvy than most ... I always check my OS compatibility when shopping for hardware ... and I use an OS that is far less popular than Linux (OpenBSD)

Edited 2011-09-24 21:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

I'm sure there were completely naive people like you who said that Microsoft is just one OS company. They could never keep OSM's from using all other OS options. Right? Except that Microsoft did exactly that. And it took about 20 years before that started to change a bit. Still its almost impossible to find a PC without Windows in any store. Windows should be an option, not a must buy. Wake up and read history. Those who forget it are doomed to repeat it.

Reply Parent Score: 7

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

lucas_maximus,

"If OEMs stop you from disabling it ... then don't buy that hardware. ... I always check my OS compatibility when shopping for hardware ... and I use an OS that is far less popular than Linux (OpenBSD)"

You are only addressing one issue, that of disabling the secure boot feature. But will windows run unrestricted when secure boot is disabled? Or will owners be punished for having Linux/BSD installed?

If you know the answer to these questions, the please provide the source because I really do want to know.

Edit: Will users need to disable secure boot just to run knoppix? It sounds like the answer is yes. It will discourage people from using the linux live CDs in the back of some magazines, assuming publishers will even bother distributing them any more.

Edited 2011-09-24 21:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4