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 495700
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by Soulbender
by Soulbender on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 21:46 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

Mr Bott is pretty good at drumming up the sensationalism and FUD himself.

In fact, the closer you look at the movement against the Secure Boot feature,the more apparent it becomes that this is about propaganda, not technology.


What movement against Secure Boot? The RH/Canonical/LF campaign is not anti-secure boot. Propaganda? For what? Having a choice? Is that somehow bad?

As for the confirmation by the leading PC makers...
HP's company line pretty much mean "I dont fscking know, ok? Wait while we figure out what's best for us".

First of all, that’s factually in error: the blog post in question was written by Microsoft’s Tony Mangefeste,


That's hair-splitting. The blog post was made by Mr Sinofsky but the majority of the content written by Mr Mangefeste.

Funny how he takes the MS guys at their word but the LF guys are the devils minions, more or less. Yeah, Corporate propaganda is so much more trustworthy.

From the MS blog:
For Windows customers, Microsoft is using the Windows Certification program to ensure that systems shipping with Windows 8 have secure boot enabled by default,


Funny how Mr Bott does not mention that, eh?

Also from the blog:
For the enthusiast who wants to run older operating systems, the option is there to allow you to make that decision.


Yeah...anything not Windows 8 is old. No propaganda to see here. No sireeeee....

Blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda. Much fud follows.

At the end of the day, this COULD become a problem so what's the harm in attacking it now BEFORE it actually becomes one? Sitting on your ass and hoping for the best isn't the wise choice.

Edited 2011-11-03 21:47 UTC

Reply Score: 12

RE: Comment by Soulbender
by lucas_maximus on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 21:58 in reply to "Comment by Soulbender"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Angry much.

You are going off on one for the sake of it ... TBH I have heard more FUD from the FLOSS community than anyone about Windows 8 ..

But never mind you guys like to raeg about whatever.

As I keep saying OEMs would be mental to stop people booting Widnows 7 since most businesses have only or just started testing for Win7 ... and won't want to move til nearer 2020.

But you know you can keep on reacting on your emotions and talking crap .. since that is largely what most people do here.

Reply Parent Score: 0

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

But you know you can keep on reacting on your emotions and talking crap .. since that is largely what most people do here.


And what you're doing is reasonable, calm, and utterly rational and not at all abrasive, right?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Soulbender
by Soulbender on Fri 4th Nov 2011 02:06 in reply to "RE: Comment by Soulbender"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Angry much.

No.

You are going off on one for the sake of it

No.

As I keep saying OEMs would be mental to stop people booting Widnows 7 since most businesses have only or just started testing for Win7


So have I. I don't think most OEM's will prevent other OS to be installed or, in case of server hardware, even enable secure boot by default. That doesn't mean this isn't a potential problem and going off on a rant against RH/C/FSF and the FOSS community, who's trying to prevent the problem, is just lame.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE: Comment by Soulbender
by shmerl on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 22:06 in reply to "Comment by Soulbender"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

More from that MS blog post:

At the end of the day, the customer is in control of their PC...


OEMs are free to choose how to enable this support and can further customize the parameters as described above in an effort to deliver unique value propositions to their customers.


Sounds like an oxymoron to me. So is the user in control, or OEMs are free to choose how to enable/disable user's ability to control UEFI? Sounds like the second is more to the point, and "user is in control" is just empty PR talk.

Reply Parent Score: 6

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I will keep on arguing the same stuff whatever the evidence presented to me.</sarcasm>

Dell and HP have said they will support disable secure boot. Why don't you actually like raeg when they like "don't" do what they say. Since the statements are perfectly clear to me ... apparently not Thom ... I don't see what the problem is.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

From the MS blog:
"For Windows customers, Microsoft is using the Windows Certification program to ensure that systems shipping with Windows 8 have secure boot enabled by default,


Funny how Mr Bott does not mention that, eh?
"It's a sensible thing to do, though - the majority would never enable the feature, and it'd be all for nothing.

As long as "enabled by default" doesn't imply "with no way to disable it", it's a perfectly fine choice IMHO.

Reply Parent Score: 0