Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 31st Oct 2011 12:25 UTC
Linux "Red Hat, Canonical and the Linux Foundation have laid out a set of recommendations for hardware vendors in hopes of preserving the ability to install Linux on Windows 8 machines. Windows 8 machines should ship in a setup mode giving users more control right off the bat, the groups argue." Group hug-cheer combo for Red Hat, Canonical, and the Linux Foundation please.
Thread beginning with comment 495029
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Them are fighting words...
by bnolsen on Mon 31st Oct 2011 15:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Them are fighting words..."
bnolsen
Member since:
2006-01-06

But they are making it a PITA AND MS is requiring a very questionable feature to be implemented for certification. it's up to the board manufacturers to go out of their way to implement an "off switch" and then there's the whole issue that the board manufacturers don't have to implement the off switch.

So how is a purchaser supposed to know if they board they want to purchase has the forced feature disabled or not? Is it required as part of the packaging? Or someone is just "supposed to know" what they are getting supports the "off switch"?

What if someone just buys a system without knowing any better and later they want to play with other OS's and then find out the board doesn't support the off switch? Are they just SOL ?

Edited 2011-10-31 15:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 12

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

How is it a PITA? Going into the BIOS and turning it off is a pain in the ass? How lazy are you?

If a manufacturer can't read the specs of a particular MB, then they just suck, and should go out of business. If an enthusiast can't? Then they really suck.

This has as much meaning as the Processor IDs that Intel introduced with the P3, which is absolutely none. If you can't turn it off on a particular MB, then don't buy it. If you can't turn it off on a particular OEM computer, then don't buy it.

Vote with your dollars, and don't fall for the FUD.

Edited 2011-10-31 21:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

BluenoseJake,

"How is it a PITA? Going into the BIOS and turning it off is a pain in the ass? How lazy are you?"

There are really two issues at stake:

1. The ability to the option off AND have windows continue working without restriction so that dual boot is possible. It's entirely up to microsoft whether normal dual booting will be possible or not. If MS decide to require secure boot to boot a fully functional windows, then even with mainboards that allow users to disable the feature, it will be a major "pain in the ass".

2. The ability to keep the secure boot option on AND enable it for alternate operating systems. It's hard to justify a security measure being included in every system that, in effect, gives special treatment to the microsoft monopoly. It's a faulty design that doesn't deserve standardization if it can't be used effectively by third parties, which it won't be able to if owners don't control the keys.

"If a manufacturer can't read the specs of a particular MB, then they just suck, and should go out of business."

??

"If an enthusiast can't? Then they really suck."

Do you honestly think stores will bother distinguishing between "designed for windows" and "locked to windows"? Most consumers won't know that it works or not until it fails to boot. Now dual booting might only affect a minority of users, but for those of us in that minority, it really does suck.

I purchased a number of secondhand machines extremely cheap to use as linux servers - some came with windows licenses, others didn't, but I didn't really care since I was confident linux would run fine on them, and I was right. Unfortunately secure boot, as spec'ed, may very well add artificial restrictions on what these machines can run. Now tell us again it's not a PITA.

And as someone else said, it's not just linux. All other operating systems are at risk, especially enthusiast operating systems. None of this "secure boot" would be at all controversial if the engineers had only placed the actual owners at the top of the chain of trust. This is all so obvious that it's hard to imagine it not being a deliberate goal for DRM purposes.

Edited 2011-11-01 00:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 9

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

So how is a purchaser supposed to know if they board they want to purchase has the forced feature disabled or not? Is it required as part of the packaging? Or someone is just "supposed to know" what they are getting supports the "off switch"?


Since there are motherboard manufacturers who cater to hardcore gamers that like to run multiple video cards and overclock their CPUs, I'm pretty sure that a few of them will make boards with this option turned off, and will advertise that fact. Afterall, I'd like to think there are at least as many Linux users out there as hardcore gamers.

Sure, this may prevent major OEMs from offering 'Windows 8 certified' machines that can run Linux, but let's be realistic... if desktop Linux hasn't yet caught on to the point where major OEMs want to pimp it, it probably never will. It's always going to be an OS primarily used by geeks.

Reply Parent Score: 1

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Sure, this may prevent major OEMs from offering 'Windows 8 certified' machines that can run Linux,


No, wrong. All that an OEM has to do is implement UEFI in its entirety. It doesn't have to turn it on.


but let's be realistic... if desktop Linux hasn't yet caught on to the point where major OEMs want to pimp it, it probably never will. It's always going to be an OS primarily used by geeks.


You do realize that you've just insulted somebody's religion, right? ;-)

Reply Parent Score: 2