Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Oct 2011 21:03 UTC, submitted by Dirge
GNU, GPL, Open Source "The Free Software Foundation released a statement open for public signing, titled 'Stand up for your freedom to install free software'. The statement is a response to Microsoft's announcement that if computer makers wish to distribute machines with the Windows 8 compatibility logo, they must implement a system called 'Secure Boot'. The FSF statement warns against the danger that, if done wrong, this system would have to be called Restricted Boot, because it could make computers incapable of running anything but Windows." Signed.
Thread beginning with comment 493353
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Security isn't a dirty word
by Hieper on Tue 18th Oct 2011 21:44 UTC
Member since:

Security to a large degree means protecting users from themselves, so this option _has_to_be_ enabled by default. I would not recommend a Win8 machine to anyone if it doesn't have this feature.

No need for this 'Occupy Redmond' stance. Next they'll be requiring open source graphics drivers for Windows...

Reply Score: -5

RE: Security isn't a dirty word
by mithnae on Tue 18th Oct 2011 21:53 in reply to "Security isn't a dirty word"
mithnae Member since:

what is a „Win8 machine”?

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE: Security isn't a dirty word
by Lennie on Tue 18th Oct 2011 22:25 in reply to "Security isn't a dirty word"
Lennie Member since:

What is wrong with porting Linux open source graphics drivers to Windows ? AMD/ATI recently started to do so:

It might be enabled by default, but the real problem is that some OEM might not even add an option to their BIOS.

That means you can't even install, for example, Windows 7 if you would wanted to do so.

This isn't just about Linux or BSD, but about choice.

To prevent the PC becoming a smartphone or game-console which first has to be rooted before you can install an other operating system.

Edited 2011-10-18 22:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 11

f0dder Member since:

It might be enabled by default, but the real problem is that some OEM might not even add an option to their BIOS.
To their UEFI, you mean :-)

If that happens, that's a real problem, and then you've got a piece of hardware that's as handicapped as Apple's commodity hardware. And I do agree that there's a lot of reason for concern, which is why I welcome the FSF campaign.

But to be taken seriously, people should try to avoid the "zomgMSareevilthisWILLhappen" doomsday theories.

Reply Parent Score: 1

bassbeast Member since:

Uhhh...dude? Didn't read your own link? They ported it to Windows embedded which has about as much to do with the Windows everyone uses as an X360. WinCE is frankly a dead OS anyway as most OEMs are looking at either WinPhone or Win 8 if they want Windows but for some reason don't want to use...well Windows.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:

Exactly what wide-spread real-world threats does Secure Boot protect the average user from?

Reply Parent Score: 8

Gestahlt Member since:


Reply Parent Score: 10

f0dder Member since:

After a long hiatus, MBR based rootkits are semi-slowly starting to appear again. And the MBR is not the only time you can attack the boot sequence if BIOS-based operating systems. x64 versions of Windows have enforced driver signing, but there's plenty of time during the boot sequence before those checks are being done.

Reply Parent Score: 1