Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 19:34 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Hardware, Embedded Systems A big issue right now in the world of operating systems - especially Linux - is Microsoft's requirement that all Windows 8 machines ship with UEFI's secure boot enabled, with no requirement that OEMs implement it so users can turn it off. This has caused some concern in the Linux world, and considering Microsoft's past and current business practices and the incompetence of OEMs, that's not unwarranted. CNet's Ed Bott decided to pose the issue to OEMs. Dell stated is has plans to include the option to turn secure boot off, while HP was a bit more vague about the issue.
Thread beginning with comment 495695
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 21:03 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Nothing was said about proper solutions though. Disabling secure boot is a dumb workaround, but not really the proper method. Proper method is giving the user a way to manage keys for the UEFI.

http://ozlabs.org/docs/uefi-secure-boot-impact-on-linux.pdf
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/making-uefi-secure-boot...

This guy's comments from http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/leading-pc-makers-confirm-no-windows... are just pathetic.

Edited 2011-11-03 21:09 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE: Comment by shmerl
by Alfman on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 22:10 in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

shmerl,

"Nothing was said about proper solutions though. Disabling secure boot is a dumb workaround, but not really the proper method. Proper method is giving the user a way to manage keys for the UEFI."

That's just it, disabling secure boot should be a *last resort*. The inclusion of security features which users can't enable for alternative operating systems is anti-competitive and makes them second class operating systems.

This is all the more frustrating because secure boot should have been engineered in a way the benefits the end user rather than restricting us.

Ed Bott doesn't attempt to make any reasoned arguments and doesn't even touch upon any of our real concerns (such as dual boot, the accessibility of keys, DRM, etc). He brushes off secure boot criticisms in one fell swoop when he jumps strait to the conclusion that this is a fud campaign in his first line. He hasn't answered any of our questions, and seems more pissed off that we are asking them than anything else.

Damn it Ed, I look forward to new information on this important issue and all you've done is to re-frame the debate at an abstract level without addressing anything at all.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE: Comment by shmerl
by f0dder on Fri 4th Nov 2011 00:04 in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
f0dder Member since:
2009-08-05

Nothing was said about proper solutions though. Disabling secure boot is a dumb workaround, but not really the proper method. Proper method is giving the user a way to manage keys for the UEFI.
That comment deserves a zillion upvotes.

Reply Parent Score: 3