Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Linux On Microsoft Surface Is a Tough Challenge

Posted by timothy on from the 5-feet-high-and-risin' dept.

hypnosec writes "With Linux enthusiasts and distro publishers eagerly waiting for a solution to Microsoft's UEFI SecureBoot, there are those who have already looked at the viability of Linux on Microsoft Surface tablet. Matthew Garrett, a.k.a. UEFI-guru, has revealed that those who are keeping their fingers crossed and hoping to find run Linux on Microsoft's tablet are on an uphill walk and it doesn't seem to be an easy one. So why is this? The answer is in the manner in which Microsoft has restricted the Surface from loading non-signed software / binaries by implementing UEFI SecureBoot. Microsoft has loaded on the ARM based tablet its private key instead of the 'Microsoft Windows UEFI Driver Publisher' key, which is needed to sign non-Microsoft software like Linux distributions or loaders. So, no publisher key = no signed non-Microsoft binary = no Linux."

2 of 561 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Another reason not to buy Surface by drsmithy · · Score: 1, Troll

    A large part of that was leveraging its OS and bundling it with different products in other markets (such as web browsers) and making it difficult, if not impossible to separate them (thinking back to the IE debacle).

    Yet today the idea of not having an embedded browser component in your desktop OS is laughable.

    Used to be your desktop OS didn't even come with a network stack. Was it monopoly abuse when Microsoft put one in Windows ?

  2. Re:Another reason not to buy Surface by drsmithy · · Score: 0, Troll

    The only thing that matters was whether the monopolist was hindering competition at the time by abusing its monopoly position.

    It's funny that you mentioned Winsock. Back in the day Microsoft created a winsock library that detected and overwrote the proprietary winsock DLLs included with the software from the leading online service providers of the day (AOL and Compuserve) [...]

    Source ?

    [...] and, surprise surprise, conflicted with the software of those services. Many speculated this was to push Microsoft's new (at the time) online service - MSN

    Except - before even contemplating how completely different those things were - winsock was Windows 3.xx era and MSN came in with Win95.

    So for Winsock, yes, there was a definite point to answer regarding monopolistic practices when they started bundling it in Windows 95. It also killed Trumpet Winsock, but that was another matter entirely.

    So you would argue Windows shouldn't have a TCP/IP stack today because it's anti-competitive ?

    How far back do you want to go here ? Will you argue Windows shouldn't have Explorer because back in the day the whole GUI was a separate product ?