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 496153
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Ok, let's be fair
by ilovebeer on Sun 6th Nov 2011 14:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ok, let's be fair"
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

Existing knowledgeable linux users will suffer somewhat due to the worsening availability of equipment that works for us, new or used. Keep in mind many linux users also need to use windows, and we don't all care to build our own systems. We probably won't be able to get the scales of economy deals any longer because of these restrictions. I know you don't care about keeping our supplier options open, but that doesn't make the point any less valid, fragmentation will hurt us.
1. It's not Microsoft's responsibility to cater to Linux users wants.

2. The availability of Linux-compatible hardware is absolutely NOT "worsening." - whatever that is supposed to mean to begin with. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true... more and more hardware is supported with each iteration of the Linux kernel alone, not to mention out-of-kernel drivers.

3. If you choose not to buy or build a system that suits your needs, it's your own fault and your own problem. Vendors aren't to blame, Microsoft isn't to blame, just you.

4. Nothing you've said is based in reality, truth, or fact. In other words, you're just trying to spread unjustified FUD.

A bigger concern, IMO, is that the vendor locks on new windows machines will severely limit alternate OS adoption by newbies. The reasons for this should be obvious. Saying it's their fault for not knowing any better is ridiculous considering that there was no reason they should have been locked in the first place.
1. There is absolutely nothing wrong or illegal with Microsoft or system vendors protecting their interests.

2. If a user does not consider their needs and research their options, picking one that best suits those needs, then yes it's absolutely their own fault. What's ridiculous is that you think users have no personal responsibility.

I've already pointed out issues with secure boot that affect windows users as well. I appreciate that you don't care about any of it's problems, and that's ok. But that's not a reason to dismiss the problems for everyone else, we have legitimate reasons to be concerned and seek answers.
1. IF reality becomes "Designed for Windows 8" systems are actually locked to only Windows 8, then the only people who should consider buying those systems are people who intend to use Windows 8. If you insist on buying something doesn't suit your needs, stop the pointless whining and learn to make better decisions.

No matter how hard you try, you simply can not ignore the fact that you have several other options available to you aside of buying "Designed for Windows 8" systems. If the systems turn out not to be suited for your use, DON'T BUY THEM. It's such a basic and simplistic idea that it shouldn't even need to be pointed out.

You're behaving like somebody that buys a circle and complains that it's not a square. Stupidity and/or ignorance doesn't magically make your poor decisions someone elses fault.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[5]: Ok, let's be fair
by ichi on Sun 6th Nov 2011 18:52 in reply to "RE[4]: Ok, let's be fair"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

No matter how hard you try, you simply can not ignore the fact that you have several other options available to you aside of buying "Designed for Windows 8" systems. If the systems turn out not to be suited for your use, DON'T BUY THEM. It's such a basic and simplistic idea that it shouldn't even need to be pointed out.

You're behaving like somebody that buys a circle and complains that it's not a square. Stupidity and/or ignorance doesn't magically make your poor decisions someone elses fault.


So your point is that instead of asking OEMs to come up with a sane SecureBoot implementation we should suck it up and beg for the crumbs shopping around for the few non Windows8 hardware that we can find.

Will any OEM be selling PCs and laptops without Windows8 in a couple of years?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Ok, let's be fair
by ilovebeer on Mon 7th Nov 2011 00:48 in reply to "RE[5]: Ok, let's be fair"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

So your point is that instead of asking OEMs to come up with a sane SecureBoot implementation we should suck it up and beg for the crumbs shopping around for the few non Windows8 hardware that we can find.

Do you actually believe pc hardware is going to magically vanish the moment Windows 8 becomes available? Come on, you can't be serious.

When did secure boot on "Designed for Windows 8" prebuilt systems suddenly turn into the elimination of nearly anything not being the logo? It didn't. The fear mongers and your imagination is getting the better of you because there is not a single shred of evidence or proof that what you've proposed will actually happen. Fearing the rapture doesn't make the rapture come true -- you should be well aware of by now.

Will any OEM be selling PCs and laptops without Windows8 in a couple of years?

Yes, of course. This is not even in question for those of us who know better than to buy into the baseless imaginary BS that anything non-Windows 8 will soon cease to exist.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Ok, let's be fair
by Alfman on Sun 6th Nov 2011 22:32 in reply to "RE[4]: Ok, let's be fair"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

ilovebeer,

"1. It's not Microsoft's responsibility to cater to Linux users wants."

Overlooking possible anti-trust violations, you're absolutely right, however this simply does not dismiss our concerns.

"2. ... more and more hardware is supported with each iteration of the Linux kernel alone, not to mention out-of-kernel drivers."

Out of the box Linux compatibility is a strength... But 1) this isn't just about linux, 2) how does this justify locking down the keys to favor microsoft?


"3. If you choose not to buy or build a system that suits your needs, it's your own fault and your own problem. Vendors aren't to blame, Microsoft isn't to blame, just you."

This only holds if the restrictions are made clear at the point of sale. My point about fragmentation of the alternative OS ecosystem still holds. And in any case it still doesn't justify secure boot being designed to lock out the owner's control over keys.

"4. Nothing you've said is based in reality, truth, or fact. In other words, you're just trying to spread unjustified FUD."

I'm asking questions like everyone else because I am concerned about the migration to closed computing. Please quote specifically what you believe to be unjustified FUD. If you don't have the answers either, then why do you seek to dismiss my questions?

"1. There is absolutely nothing wrong or illegal with Microsoft or system vendors protecting their interests."

You can say that about any business with questionable ethics, however it doesn't answer our questions nor does it ameliorate our concerns. Even assuming these restrictions are entirely legal, it does not absolve them of public criticism.

"2. If a user does not consider their needs and research their options, picking one that best suits those needs, then yes it's absolutely their own fault. What's ridiculous is that you think users have no personal responsibility."

Like I said, you can blame the user as much as you like, but you can't deny that it is anti-competitive and potentially kills off one of the primary modes of adoption for alternate operating systems. Therefor it is a legitimate concern.


"...the fact that you have several other options available to you aside of buying 'Designed for Windows 8' systems. If the systems turn out not to be suited for your use, DON'T BUY THEM."

Again, even if you are right, it doesn't answer our questions and it doesn't dismiss our concerns at all. The secure boot spec still deserves criticism for being anti-competitive. As much as you want to see this through microsoft goggles, this is bigger than them. It's about recognizing that consumers benefit from open computing, and recognizing that incremental attempts to lock us out of our own machines have detrimental cumulative long term consequences, regardless of who instigates it.

Edited 2011-11-06 22:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Ok, let's be fair
by ilovebeer on Mon 7th Nov 2011 01:36 in reply to "RE[5]: Ok, let's be fair"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Overlooking possible anti-trust violations, you're absolutely right, however this simply does not dismiss our concerns.

We don't know what the secure boot facts are yet and therefore no anti-trust issues are in play. Regardless, it's the OEM who will decide how secure boot behaves, not Microsoft.

how does this justify locking down the keys to favor microsoft?

This is not fact, it's baseless speculation. Until the facts are presented, be cautious how much you let your mind wander.

This only holds if the restrictions are made clear at the point of sale. My point about fragmentation of the alternative OS ecosystem still holds. And in any case it still doesn't justify secure boot being designed to lock out the owner's control over keys.

I absolutely believe any such restrictions should be made clear at the point of sale. Regardless, key management restrictions don't need to be justified. IF it turns out owners won't have control of this, so what. The user is buying a prebuilt system with a specific design and intent. If that's not in agreement with the users needs, the user should not buy the system. You can't escape this simple fact.

I'm asking questions like everyone else because I am concerned about the migration to closed computing. Please quote specifically what you believe to be unjustified FUD. If you don't have the answers either, then why do you seek to dismiss my questions?

I have no problem with people asking questions. However, those questions should at least be based in reality with factual supporting evidence so the questions have some sort of valid basis. To make baseless wild accusations is reckless at best. It serves only to spread fear, not focus on real world world issues.

You can say that about any business with questionable ethics, however it doesn't answer our questions nor does it ameliorate our concerns. Even assuming these restrictions are entirely legal, it does not absolve them of public criticism.

Again, your questions thus far have had no basis in reality. They're the product of imagination, nothing more. You can dream up as many nightmare scenarios as you like but you can't expect anyone to take them seriously if you can't provide any actual evidence there's real world concern.

As far as criticism, ... Yeah, go for it, no problem there. As long as you understand the difference between an opinion and making baseless accusations.

Like I said, you can blame the user as much as you like, but you can't deny that it is anti-competitive and potentially kills off one of the primary modes of adoption for alternate operating systems. Therefor it is a legitimate concern.

It is not Microsoft's job, nor the OEM's job, to provide Linux migration paths. OEM's opting to add "Designed for Windows 8" systems to their product offerings does not take away the users ability to purchase or build a non-"Designed for Windows 8" system. Choice has not, is not, and will not be removed from the equation.

Again, even if you are right, it doesn't answer our questions and it doesn't dismiss our concerns at all. The secure boot spec still deserves criticism for being anti-competitive. As much as you want to see this through microsoft goggles, this is bigger than them. It's about recognizing that consumers benefit from open computing, and recognizing that incremental attempts to lock us out of our own machines have detrimental cumulative long term consequences, regardless of who instigates it.

Concerns are fine but for them to be taken seriously they should have a basis in reality. Yet again, something your concerns don't have.

I agree, a secure boot spec should be thoroughly reviewed and criticized. And you should accurately address those who are actually implementing it, which is not Microsoft.

I don't wear Microsoft google... I simply don't share your not-based-in-reality paranoia. I focus my attention on fact while you focus your attention on whatever your imagination has conjured up. I want to talk about things that actually exist, and you want to talk about things that don't exist. The only way we'll see eye-to-eye is if your fantasy becomes reality, or you just come back to reality.

Reply Parent Score: 1