Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 29th Dec 2012 16:37 UTC
Linux It's sad that we need this, but alas - Matthew Garret has made a list of Linux distributions that boot on Windows 8 PCs with Secure Boot enabled. Tellingly enough, the list is short. Very short. Can someone hack this nonsense into oblivion please?
Thread beginning with comment 546678
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Screw that.
by westlake on Sun 30th Dec 2012 20:28 UTC in reply to "Screw that."
westlake
Member since:
2010-01-07

The more Linux distributions that support this catastrophe, the more this shit will catch on, and then we'll *all* be fucked.


Too late.

Secure Boot dates from UEFI spec 2.2. [2008.]

It didn't come out of the blue and it is not Microsoft only - and it is not going away.

The Unified EFI Forum...is an alliance between several leading technology companies to modernize the booting process. The board of directors includes representatives from eleven "Promoter" companies: AMD, American Megatrends, Apple, Dell, HP, IBM, Insyde Software, Intel, Lenovo, Microsoft, and Phoenix Technologies.


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

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Screw that.
by UltraZelda64 on Mon 31st Dec 2012 00:01 in reply to "RE: Screw that."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

I think you might be mixing UEFI, a modern BIOS replacement, with SecureBoot--Microsoft's purposely crippling UEFI-based technology that just happens to use UEFI as its vehicle and method of execution.

SecureBoot is not a required part of UEFI; it's just another feature that, theoretically, is supposed to be possible to be switched on and off at will (see: probably every single UEFI x86-based machine). It is a required part for OEMs to implement in order to pass the Windows Logo test and obtain official certification from Microsoft. Microsoft is the one requiring that it be enabled on all ARM systems with no way to disable, and therefore it is more of a Microsoft/Windows restriction than anything.

In the way it's being used, I would say that it does in fact have absolutely nothing to do with anything other than Windows, Microsoft's bottom line, and their desire to thwart competition without any real merits.

It's almost 2013 now, and apparently EULAs are no longer enough for these companies; they will stop at nothing to strictly enforce their plans it seems. First an agreement... now technical restrictions built into the hardware.

Edited 2012-12-31 00:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4