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 495762
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by Soulbender
by lucas_maximus on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 23:53 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Soulbender"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

tl;dr;

Read the f--king article.

UEFI doesn't allow any OS interaction with it. That is the whole idea there isn't an OS API to interact with it .. which is why it is secure.

There are manufacturers (big ones) that say they aren't going to be dicks and not give you the option. Even the BIOS guys are saying "We want you do to it not piss people off". WTF more do you guys want?

You can boot your precious Operating System (I am an OpenBSD/Win 7 user).

GPL is incompatiple with secure boot (thanks to RMS, but BSD is alright).

WTF more do you want?

Edited 2011-11-03 23:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by Soulbender
by Alfman on Fri 4th Nov 2011 03:17 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Soulbender"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

lucas_maximus,

"tl;dr;"
"WTF more do you want?"

Honestly, I just want you to stop side stepping the issues and then pretending your right.

Edited 2011-11-04 03:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Half of it was an anti-microsoft rant .. so it was tl;dr;

There is not one single thread of evidence that OEMs are going to give you a BIOS option to turn secure boot off.

So far there has been tons of evidence that they will ... but people on here will continue to raeg.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Comment by Soulbender
by lemur2 on Fri 4th Nov 2011 03:37 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by Soulbender"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

There are manufacturers (big ones) that say they aren't going to be dicks and not give you the option.


That would be good, if true. However, to this point in time, it is just CNet's Ed Bott saying this, not manufacturers (big ones).

Even the BIOS guys are saying "We want you do to it not piss people off".


Not a problem anyway, FOSS guys have their own BIOSes.

WTF more do you guys want? You can boot your precious Operating System (I am an OpenBSD/Win 7 user). GPL is incompatiple with secure boot (thanks to RMS, but BSD is alright).


GRUB is GPL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_GRUB

... but LILO isn't

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LILO_%28boot_loader%29

... and Splashtop is proprietary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splashtop

WTF more do you want?


Control over hardware that we purchase. "Sovreignity", if you will. If the hardware has UEFI with secure boot, then the owner of the hardware (the person who pays for it) should be the one to have control over keys. Not OEMs.

Edited 2011-11-04 03:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[9]: Comment by Soulbender
by Alfman on Fri 4th Nov 2011 04:06 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by Soulbender"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

lemur2,

"Control over hardware that we purchase. 'Sovreignity', if you will. If the hardware has UEFI with secure boot, then the owner of the hardware (the person who pays for it) should be the one to have control over keys. Not OEMs."

Exactly. While many people will not care about keys, what reason is there to deny access to those of us that do? Does anyone have a good reason owners should not be entitled to their own keys?

Reply Parent Score: 4