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."

13 of 561 comments (clear)

  1. Another reason not to buy Surface by turkeyfeathers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As if you needed another reason.

    1. Re:Another reason not to buy Surface by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As if you needed another reason.

      Exactly. Solution? Don't buy a Surface if you want to run Linux / Android on it.

      It's so deliciously simple.

      I don't like Win8 either.

      Guess what? I haven't bought it.

      Another thing I haven't bought:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cadillac_CTS_front.JPG

      It's an ugly car... I don't want one.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Another reason not to buy Surface by Joe+U · · Score: 5, Funny

      That dominant market share of 1%?

    3. Re:Another reason not to buy Surface by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In what market are you proposing Microsoft has a monopoly ?

      It's in the sentence you quote. Windows. They were convicted of abusing monopoly power in the OS/Browser/Office arena a while back, in case you might've missed that trial. Their "probation" expired recently, so they've been much more aggressive in launching lock-in at the vendor level.

      "Dominant market share" ? In what market ? Not tablet hardware. Not tablet OSes. Not tablet software. What market ?

      They are doing what most monopolies do when they want to dominate a new market. Use their existing monopoly to leverage an unfair advantage and squeeze out competitors. Surely you agree Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS market. The closest competitor (albeit a rich one) is Apple. Standard Oil did it many times over, and it's pretty common even among vertical monopolies like Standard Oil.

      The reason this is an abuse is quite simple. They are requiring ARM based tablets that have Windows 8 certification (take whatever you want from the intended meaning of that phrase) to require a non-user accessible key to certify or "sign" binaries on the ARM platform. Granted, Surface is Microsoft's product, but this will (and it has been WELL documented) apply to ALL ARM processor based tablets, even from third parties. (Want to play in Windows 8 Land? You're going to have to pay the gatekeeper, Microsoft, and not give users the SecureBoot Keys.)

      Implications are that they will continue to move outward from this "non-monopoly" market of tablets and phones into Intel-based "certified" Windows 8 laptops. (Desktops are probably safe, but I wouldn't bet on Redmond's desire to kill Linux and other alternative OSes there too.) All you have to do is look at the history of Microsoft to see that anything they do is geared towards not making a better product than their competitors, but defeating utterly their competitors and leaving them unable to continue. The problem that Microsoft's been facing for decades now is the fact that Linux is free. You can't under-price free, and you can't, in the current Intel architecture, make a suitable "Windows only" system anymore. (There are exceptions, and some driver support sucks, but for the most part, it's not like it was in the heyday of Microsoft's OS hot war against everyone else.)

      Microsoft wants the early 90's back. They also want to do that without attracting the ire of the Federal Government. They do this where they aren't dominant and see how the public takes it. Remember TPM and encrypting hard drives (the ATA standard) back in the late 90's. It was floated about that using that could combat those evil pirates with keys granted by a licensed arm of the government (or contractor, hint Microsoft) Good ol' Senator Fritz Hollings was on the witch hunt claiming if technology companies didn't invent a way to prevent piracy at the circuit level, the federal government would step in... Thankfully that was quashed, and now Fritz is close to his karma catching up to the old cocksucker.

      So forgive us for not believing Microsoft doesn't have a sinister plot in mind with this secureBoot code signing fungasm of theirs. History has proven that they are not to be trusted.... ever.

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
  2. Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't buy a surface?

    1. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Eventually all hardware will be like this. What will be your solution then? Don't buy a computer?

      The trend is clear. Not so long ago, ALL hardware was yours after you bought it. Now, only a fraction is, and the ones that are not, are in the process of being locked down. In 10 years, 15 tops, you won't be able to buy an unlocked device, not a desktop, not a mobile. There will be some way to run Linux still, such as your vendor buying a key, but it's all going to be at someone else's permission.

      Have fun with that world.

    2. Re:Solution by disambiguated · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In 20 years, there will still be general-purpose computers, but they'll be extremely expensive.

      While I admire your extreme cynicism, you haven't been paying attention to hardware trends. General purpose computers will be expensive relative to the special purpose ones, which is to say they will be dirt cheap (and obscenely powerful by today's standards) .

      Until they make it illegal, someone will always be willing to manufacture general-purpose-do-what-you-want machines.

  3. Well then ... by King_TJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    no publisher key = no signed non-Microsoft binary = no Linux = NO SALE!

    Honestly, I have no real interest in the Microsoft Surface anyway. I played with one at the store for a little while, and walked away thinking, "Pretty looking, but ultimately adds no value for me." Obviously though, others feel differently.

    Still, if you're someone actually interested in a Surface but NOT to run Windows on it? The fact Microsoft has it this locked down should tell you to move along and not vote for this product with your wallet. It's great to see people enabling hardware to do new things it wasn't intended to do originally.... but where do we draw the line?

  4. Unbelievable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Stop. Just stop.

    It's a Microsoft device. It was designed to run Win RT. This is quite clearly marked on the box and the device itself.

    There are a thousand other things wrong with Linux right now and nobody seems interested in fixing them (yes, I'm doing my part, but I only have so much free time to spend fixing random issues and maintaining my own packages). No, instead, we're going to dump all our time and effort into making a device that was NEVER DESIGNED TO RUN LINUX, well, run Linux.

    Sooner or later you just have to say enough is enough. This is almost as stupid as buying an iPad or iPhone and attempting to run Android on it. Just because you're buying "hardware" doesn't mean you're getting the privilege of installing whatever the hell you want on the device. Mobile equipment like this is marketed and sold as an end-to-end solution, you're not buying hardware- you're buying software tied to hardware. Making the mistake of thinking that the hardware is there for you to do whatever you wish with is silly. If you want a tablet to run Linux on, buy a tablet that runs Linux.

    Trying to shoehorn the 'tux onto the ARM Surface is stupid. No shit Microsoft has locked the thing up, they're subsidizing the damned hardware by assuming that you'll run Windows on it and buy applications through the Windows App Store.

    This is almost as dumb as buying a set of kitchen utensils then wondering why you can't build a shed with them. If you wanted to buy a shed, why didn't you invest in a set of proper tools? What on earth made you think a few forks, spoons, and knives were going to let you do the same thing?

    1. Re:Unbelievable. by codepigeon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was right there with you until: 'just because you buy the hardware, you think you have the privilege to install what you want'.

      what!!! What has happened to this world?! I bought it. If I want to install DOS 6.2 on it, that is nobody's business but mine. I cant believe the corporations have managed to convince people like you otherwise.

    2. Re:Unbelievable. by Anachragnome · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where is the rationality in buying a product that doesn't suit your needs?

  5. My views of ownership may differ from yours by tuppe666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just because you're buying "hardware" doesn't mean you're getting the privilege of installing whatever the hell you want on the device.

    See ignoring the massive flag waving response. I have this belief that if I buy something I can do what the hell I want with it. When did I start hiring/licensing my computer!! Can Microsoft really not effective compete with Linux the OS you claim in not ready (It is has been for years) I believe the Android variant is set to eclipse Windows Next Year.

  6. Specious logic by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are a thousand other things wrong with Linux right now and nobody seems interested in fixing them (yes, I'm doing my part, but I only have so much free time to spend fixing random issues and maintaining my own packages). No, instead, we're going to dump all our time and effort into making a device that was NEVER DESIGNED TO RUN LINUX, well, run Linux.

    Until relatively recently, no device was *ever* designed to run linux. If the Linux community accepted that approach, Linux wouldn't run on anything.

    I think it's important, and sends a message to big companies, that Linux run on everything. It tells them, you will not avoid us. You cannot lock your shit down. No matter what you do, we'll be there.

    If I was more clever, I'd do a rendition of a Police song to accentuate the point.