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 495074
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

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:


"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

BluenoseJake Member since:

I'd say if MS cripples Windows is secure boot is turned off, they are only shooting themselves in the ass, that's a bogus argument, they'd be crazy to do it. If they did do it, they lose, and they wouldn't do it, because if they did, they would be losing all the geeks that use WinPE boot disks for maintenance, all the people who dual boot for compatibility reasons with older versions of Windows (which they said would be supported), older computers that don't have UEFI, as well as all the dual booting lInux and BSD users. Lets get real.

On your second point, I don't know any computer enthusiast, hard core gamer, or geek who doesn't research the hell out of a MB purchase, at least all the one I know do. When do we take responsibility for our own actions? If I go to a store and buy a MB, or order it online, if it doesn't meet my immediate needs, then it goes back, or gets sold.

Just don't support manufacturers that don't allow it to be turned off. Intel tried the same thing with that Processor ID I mentioned earlier, and there isn't a MB in the universe where it can't be turned off (and usually defaults to off).

We're arguing something that hasn't even happened yet. Why don't we all wait, and see what happens. until then, all I hear is a lot of FUD. (3 times inone day, wow.)

Reply Parent Score: 1