Slashdot Mirror
No Windows 8 Plot To Lock Out Linux
First time accepted submitter Bucky24 writes "ZDNet's Ed Bott decided to contact major PC makers to find out the truth about Windows 8 SecureBoot. The responses are encouraging for those of us who run third party operating systems. Dell plans to have a BIOS switch to allow SecureBoot to be disabled, and HP assures us that they will allow consumers to make their own choice as to what operating system to run, though they have not given details as to how."
1. Embrace.
While nice, if true, to hear that OEMs will be doing (part of) what people would like to see(specifically, having an option to disable 'secure boot' is better than nothing; but what you really want is the option to do a keyfill with trusted keys of your choice: signed boot components make good sense, it's just not being able to choose who is trusted to sign them that is an issue); this article could hardly be any smarmier or less informative.
"In response to the FUD campaign of the freetards, I asked some PR people. Dell said 'yes', HP emitted word salad, AMI said that they would do whatever their customers felt like. Case Solved!" If it weren't for the smirking invective, the whole thing could have been boiled down to a single paragraph(or, heaven forfend, bulked out with technical information...)
I want to leave secure boot enabled, but put me in charge of the keys. That is, I want to load my own public keys into the system (through a secure channel, such as a bios screen or flipping a physical switch, for example).
... but if it turns out that way, oops, our bad. (Not really) Sorry about that.
Just the new modern version of the old mafia line...
"That's a really nice libre operating system you've got there. Be a shame if you couldn't install it on any new PCs you buy. A real shame."
They were successfully sued (albeit more of a slap on the wrist) for antitrust violations simply for bundling a browser with an operating system.
Colluding with hardware manufacturers to actually lock out rival operating systems making them an enforced monopoly is several orders of magnitude more severe. Why would they risk that when other operating systems have such a tiny market share anyways? The possible penalties are not worth it for a small increase.
-- Insert witty one-liner here. --
Disabling secure boot is not a solution - it's crippling the security, needlessly. I'd love to hear my Dell rep explain to me on my next round of server purchases that I cannot use a fantastic feature to protect the security of my linux servers because they were too lazy/corrupt to enable me to use my own platform key. I will buy from the vendor who allows my to set the PK, and will not from those who refuse. Period.
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h
He's probably technically correct that it isn't a plot to lock out Linux. In practice though, I'd be surprised if it didn't end up like ACPI early on, where MS' implementation was the only one that many vendors bothered with, opting not to fix bugs that MS had a workaround for.
There's never been any real reason to believe that locking down of this feature would happen, apart from FUD. This whole thing is a tempest in a teapot, and it's frankly sad to see how many members of the community are willing to believe that "on by default" necessarily means "unable to turn off".
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
His hobbies are trolling and shilling for Microsoft.
It's not a hobby if you make your living that way.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
If it was something that was really locking linux out in an apparent fashion, matter could be taken into courts.
............ go figure.
But now customer is not prevented from doing it - but, this time will need to be able to get into bios, turn it off, and only after that install linux.
as you can readily agree, vast majority of computer users would not even know what 'bios' was. so, if a non-tech person from idaho was recommended linux, and got ahold of a cd and attempted to install it
This situation will make it slower for linux proliferation in mainstream, due to the tech aptitude threshold. And conveniently too - you cant argue against it because if someone knows what a bios is and what is the setting for allowing other oses, s/he can do it. if not, s/he can not. so convenient.
Read radical news here
even normal people will look for "just in case" they want to try out this Linux thing or whatever
The last time I dealt with a "normal person" buying a computer, the conversation went like this:
Me: "...this has 2 gigabytes of ram, which should last you a few years."
Her: "It's so ugly! What about that one, that one looks prettier!"
Me: "That one has a lower end processor and less memory. Are you sure you want something that is less capable?"
Her: "Look they are letting me pick the color!"
Non-technical people are just that: non-technical. Computer makers and especially Apple know exactly how to take advantage of such people, which is what "secure boot" is all about. This is about ensuring that customers can be locked into DRM-laden platforms, plain and simple. Dell will probably have the option described in TFA...in their high end workstations, that are prohibitively priced, with the option disabled for "consumer" systems. My guess is that this will not happen in the first generation of systems with "secure boot," but more likely in the second or third generation, when more "strategic" platforms are deployed out of the box for which DRM is a key part of the control.
Palm trees and 8
Dell plans to have a BIOS switch to allow SecureBoot to be disabled,
Can you please remind me again... what percentage of the average user population knows how to change a BIOS switch?
Currently they can just pop in their knoppix CD or try Ubuntu with a Live CD; No expertise regarding BIOS settings required (normally).
What we have here is an anti-competitive practice being endorsed by Microsoft in the form of a logo validating "Secure" boot.
This is a low blow, and a shoddy attempt to ward away other OSes, and prevent you from booting your computer to whatever application or OS you want to boot it into.
From the comments at the ZD story:
Where have we heard that before?
Can you believe Microsoft is using the language of Occupy Wall Street to try to position itself as the "masses" fighting the "whiny 1%" of people who prefer OSS?
ZDNet, Ed Bott, and some Microsoft executives all need to burn in hell.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Uh... it's not ad hominem to point out that the listed "experts" have a track record of being wrong, wrong and wrong again, and have been repeatedly caught with their hands in Microsoft's pockets.
Groklaw (under Pamela Jones) has called things correctly far more often than not.
Full Disclosure: On a personal note, I detest that whiny martyr PJ and her horde of White Knight sycophants, but I do have admit that it's hard to find examples of her getting things wrong.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.