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 490999
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Pressure Microsoft
by MysterMask on Wed 28th Sep 2011 08:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Pressure Microsoft"
MysterMask
Member since:
2005-07-12

Pure speculation driven by blind Apple hate.

(you shouldn't mix up the firm grip that Apple tries to get in the media / phone / tablet area with their politics in the Mac business - the same goes for MS: they behave completely different in markets where they have to fight uphill e. g. look at their HW business practices vs. their server software business behavior)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Pressure Microsoft
by Alfman on Wed 28th Sep 2011 09:27 in reply to "RE[6]: Pressure Microsoft"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

MysterMask,

"Pure speculation driven by blind Apple hate."

Not likely. According to this link, there were already more than a million EFI systems on the market prior to Apple's x86 switch in 2006.
http://www.intel.com/technology/framework/overview1.htm

"The first example of a complete end-user PC that was sold by a major OEM incorporating the framework was released in the second half of 2003. During 2005, more than one million systems shipped with the framework."

It is well known that apple's x86 macos refuses to run on non-apple PC hardware. I really do not know exactly why, however the fact that Psystar sold a "Rebel EFI" implementation designed to run MacOS on standard PCs is pretty compelling evidence that, somehow, MacOS depends on a proprietary EFI implementation.

http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/22/psystars-rebel-efi-allows-you-to-i...

Edited 2011-09-28 09:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Pressure Microsoft
by MysterMask on Wed 28th Sep 2011 17:19 in reply to "RE[7]: Pressure Microsoft"
MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12

You mix things up. We were taking about the HW limiting the OS, not about an OS that is limited to specific HW.

Furthermore, part of "EFI" is the "E" for extensibel. Of course the are specific Apple add-ons only availabel on Macs e. g. Target Disk Mode, the ability to ad-hoc boot from a different device, Target Display Mode, etc.. That still doesn't mean that Apple's HW engineers somehow try to create an incompatible EFI implementation. This is pure and blind speculation from your side.
If they wanted to create a "walled garden HW", they could have used OpenFirmware with x86, which is very uncommon in the x86 world. It's in Apple's own interest to be compatible with standard x86 HW which includes EFI compatibility

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Pressure Microsoft
by Neolander on Wed 28th Sep 2011 17:29 in reply to "RE[6]: Pressure Microsoft"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Pure speculation driven by blind Apple hate.

You're right that it's a big affirmation that's a bit hard to believe without sources, so I've tried to find my original source back. Although I haven't, I have found something else which qualifies pretty well as a proof that Mac firmwares do not follow standard EFI specs.

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UEFIBooting
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/UEFI

These are howtos which explain how to install two popular Linux distros on (U)EFI systems. Notice the presence of Mac-specific instructions and information. The reason for their presence is clearly stated : Apple uses a nonstandard mix of EFI 1.x and UEFI 2.x, which cannot work with standard EFI code and requires specific workarounds.

(you shouldn't mix up the firm grip that Apple tries to get in the media / phone / tablet area with their politics in the Mac business - the same goes for MS: they behave completely different in markets where they have to fight uphill e. g. look at their HW business practices vs. their server software business behavior)

I don't think I confuse both. On iOS, Apple attempts to squeeze money off every single financial transaction, and even freeware development. On the Mac platform, they currently only want to sell expensive and high-profit margin hardware to people who don't need necessarily need it. The introduction of an iOS-ish paying developer agreement and App Store system for OS X make it sound like they might want to introduce iOS-like full financial control in the future, but that's not the way it is now.

I do not blindly hate Apple, their engineers can do some wonders (for me, examples would include Exposé, application bundles, and Lion's Auto Save/Versions), but you must admit that the way they can treat their user base in the name of profit is quite irritating.

Edited 2011-09-28 17:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1