Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 4th Feb 2013 22:10 UTC
Google "People are, unsurprisingly, upset that Microsoft have imposed UEFI Secure Boot on the x86 market. A situation in which one company gets to determine which software will boot on systems by default is obviously open to abuse. What's more surprising is that many of the people who are upset about this are completely fine with encouraging people to buy Chromebooks. Out of the box, Chromebooks are even more locked down than Windows 8 machines." Good point.
Thread beginning with comment 551525
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

saso,

"I'm saying that the reasons for UEFI's and SecureBoot's widespread adoption aren't to help protect users, but to transfer control over the machine from the user to the manufacturer and the security thing is just a cloak under which they want to hide it. News sites such as OSNews are doing users a disservice by not calling the vendors out on it at every opportunity. This isn't about securing your machine from attackers. It's about securing the machine from you, the owner."

Your entirely right about the maligned corporate impetus behind secure boot, but why are you dissing OSNews in the process? I'm not suggesting OSNews be above criticism, but I don't really understand what your getting at here in saying they're doing users a disservice? IMHO this article was published precisely to highlight the secure boot OS prejudices that your alluding to.

Serious question: what would you have Thom do differently in covering the topic?

Reply Parent Score: 5

saso Member since:
2007-04-18

Your entirely right about the maligned corporate impetus behind secure boot, but why are you dissing OSNews in the process? I'm not suggesting OSNews be above criticism, but I don't really understand what your getting at here in saying they're doing users a disservice? IMHO this article was published precisely to highlight the secure boot OS prejudices that your alluding to.

I could have worded it a bit more succintly, I agree, but in principle I find statements like this problematic:
http://www.osnews.com/story/25180/Windows_8_Requires_Secure_Boot_Ma...

"This could potentially complicate the installation of other operating systems, like Windows 7, XP, and Linux."

This isn't just the potential, it's the clear outright reason. There's no question about it, Secure Boot is just a vehicle to place control over your machine firmly in manufacturer's hands.

Serious question: what would you have Thom do differently in covering the topic?

Well, in this case, Thom's only words were "Good point", so there's really very little talk about.

In short, my problem is for cutting way too much slack to the vendors (both MS and OEMs) and playing the politically correct game in assuming everybody is in it with clean intentions. We know what their motivations are: to squash competition from free software. We even have the big guy, Gates, on the record on the previous crapware attempt at making free software and open-source difficult to install and use (ACPI).

I guess you could just call me tired of this theater. We know the players and we know their motives, because we've seen this movie play before. And yet the whole IT news space is going through the motions again and again.

Reply Parent Score: 4