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 490665
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

The option is quite clearly highlighted that you can disable.

As with Companies locking down the BIOS ... there will be those companies that do this to UEFI as well .. and those that don't.

I fail to see how this is any different whether it is UEFI or BIOS ... the same situation exists to some extent now.

It is upto the consumer to do their research before hand ... like in every other industry. If you want the best deal you gotta do your research.

Edited 2011-09-24 22:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

nonoitall Member since:

I fail to see how this is any different whether it is UEFI or BIOS ... the same situation exists to some extent now.

Not to a very wide extend. Right now, if you buy a laptop/desktop PC and put in your own boot CD or USB stick, you can pretty much count on your computer to be able to boot from it. The OEM might cripple your ability to overclock or tweak advanced settings, but at least you can boot from any attached boot device.

This secure boot "feature" is designed to blow away that behavior, and allowing the user to disable or control this "feature" has been labeled "optional".

Reply Parent Score: 2

Alfman Member since:


I'm not sure how your post relates to the questions in my post which you responded to?

***Hypothetically*** speaking, would you have a problem if 100% "designed for windows" OEM PCs were locked to microsoft?

If 100% makes you uncomfortable, then what hypothetical percentage would you be comfortable with? Isn't the scale of damage to the linux community proportional to the ubiquity of MS locked machines (whoever is responsible)?

Edit: I'd like to ask this again: if you were designing secure boot, would you hard code OEM/microsoft keys into it? Or would the owner have control over who's signatures to trust?

Edited 2011-09-25 01:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

lucas_maximus Member since:

As I said ... there will be shitty manufacturers that would give you this option ... where they don't care about their customers ... and there will be those that do.

That is my answer to your question.

Reply Parent Score: 2