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 495099
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

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

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

BluenoseJake,

"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."

It's not a bogus argument since it is technically feasible and microsoft hasn't publicly claimed it will never do it, so far they have ignored the question.

"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..."

Well, I am very glad that this possible outcome upsets you too, even though you don't think it's likely.

"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."

It's really not that simple, there are alot of quirks/limitations that manufacturers don't publish and you're assuming everyone that might want to try linux is an expert at building computers. However linux livecds have tremendously lowered the barriers to entry for people who just want to try it out. When I was first learning about linux, I was able to boot it from two floppies, and later on to dual boot it. A rigorously enforced secure boot may have precluded my abilities to learn linux at all back then. Also, you may have never attended a Linux User Group, but around here almost every meeting people bring in windows computers to ask for help in installing linux. This boot mode fiasco can make linux more difficult to use than it should be. I really don't expect sympathy from you on this, but for those of us who it matters to, it is a legitimate concern and nothing you say makes it less so. If it doesn't matter to you, fine, but don't pretend it doesn't hurt us.

Edited 2011-11-01 03:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


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.)

Because then it would be too late.

It's easier to fight to retain a feature than fight regain something that's been taken away.

Reply Parent Score: 3