Slashdot Mirror
OEMs Allowed To Lock Secure Boot In Windows 10 Computers
jones_supa writes: Hardware that sports the "Designed for Windows 8" logo requires machines to support UEFI Secure Boot. When the feature is enabled, the core software components used to boot the machine are verified for correct cryptographic signatures, or the system refuses to boot. This is a desirable security feature, because it protects from malware sneaking into the boot process. However, it has an issue for alternative operating systems, because it's likely they won't have a signature that Secure Boot will authorize. No worries, because Microsoft also mandated that every system must have a UEFI configuration setting to turn the protection off, allowing booting other operating systems. This situation may now change. At its WinHEC hardware conference in Shenzhen, China, Microsoft said the setting to allow Secure Boot to be turned off will become optional when Windows 10 arrives. Hardware can be "Designed for Windows 10," and offer no way to opt out of the Secure Boot lock down. The choice to provide the setting (or not) will be up to the original equipment manufacturer.
That's a descriptive word I know gsm phone manufacturers work hard to distance themselves from, even more where it's more true.
I was nice of Microsoft to play along until the secure boot controversy was diffused and then stop backing openess. I'm not sure RMS would be completely surprised.
Seriously though, we have the choice, and the only thing that will maintain that freedom is that we express it with our dollars. Manufacturers are at OUR mercy, not the other way around.
If you can't get to the boot menu when you play with it in the store, don't buy it. Amazon will let you return nearly anything. This is a freedom we can defend.
http://en.altlinux.org/UEFI_SecureBoot_mini-HOWTO#shim
It's signed w/ the Microsoft key.
I'm pretty sure Stallman would not support your assertion that purchasing from Amazon is "freedom".
Because malware is sneaking into my boot process all the time!
Nah, couldn't be.
I don't buy prebuilts but any manufacturer that locks secureboot will no longer be recommended to any of my non-tech-savvy friends.
And it will also lead to a drop in support for said hardware.
I suggest that the community at large come together to create a wiki or website to list the dangers of such hardware in limiting your freedom to do what you wish.
If it was a Microsoft device, I couldn't care less.
But this is 3rd party hardware, I can and should be able to do whatever I please.
People still buy them? They just aren't worth the money they cost. Cheap out on the motherboard, they don't display that in the specs. If it has a dedicated GPU the price usually goes up a lot more than the value of the card. You pay for what you don't need, somtimes they stick some high end i7 cpu with the lowest x50 series Nvidia GPU. It all seems like a scam to me for those that lack knowledge of hardware.
Exactly. In a slightly less antagonistic tone: don't buy equipment that does not meet your needs (Duh).
Grabs popcorn.
You can currently cryptographically sign a Linux kernel to secure boot, You can install them alongside, or overwrite the windows signature (keep in mind, these keys are your new keys to the windows os. It's not truly keyless, so I would suggest add them alongside.) but most I.T. guys aren't even smart enough to know how it's done. It's no easy task even for Linux people. I currently make 6 figures in a support job and it was difficult for me. I've attempted it only once and was successful, but it is so not user friendly even to smart tech people. I would go as far as to say that even less than 1% of people will ever do it. The other hassle is, if you ever update your kernel in Linux which happens way more than in Windows, you have to re-sign against the new one and re-add the keys all over again alongside or overwrite.
However, I still have the ability to do it, and that's what's important. Make no mistake. This is a literal and direct attack on Linux. OEM's will not care about the few people who use Linux and will omit this ability essentially killing Linux off. This is Microsoft's attempt at the final nail in the coffin of Linux.
Unfortunately the vast majority of PC buyers are unaware and/or don't care and will buy that crap. They'll pay again when it comes time to have their computer serviced. I will only buy re-configurable and repairable hardware. I've built PCs before and I'll do it again. Not surprised to see that Microsoft's venture into openness was so fleeting.
"the core software components used to boot the machine are verified for correct cryptographic signatures, or the system refuses to boot"
Does that mean that IF malware infects the bootloader, the OS will not boot, BRICKING IT? Seems like an easy way for grandmothers to lose their whole computer with a click of the mouse.
However, RMS is smart enough that he would recognize that you have deliberately missed the point.
I think he would consider the right to purchase from Amazon a freedom, but agreed a poor choice.
Amazon was an example of a non-brick and mortar solution. Newegg has a decent returns policy perhaps they would have been a better example.
Don't buy from any vendor that sells locked up shitware... Why anyone would buy a pre-built machines these days is beyond me. The service is terrible from every vendor, even for coporate contratcs. They install tons of crapware, and they pick the cheapest parts possible (you ever look at the PSU in a Dell or HP, etc.? It is the smallest one that could possibly do the job, made by the lowest bidder) to then charge you MORE for it. No thanks.
First they invented SecureBoot, but that was OK, because you could turn it off.
Then they prevented disabling it, but that was OK, because several non-Windows bootloaders are signed.
Next up will be refusing to sign the boot loaders which simply disable SecureBoot and load Linux/*BSD. That will be OK, because Ubuntu is properly signed including the kernel (I think).
After that it will only be certain commercial vendors who can get a certificate, but that will be OK, because Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 will run, only allowing signed kernel modules.
Yes I hate slippery slope arguments too.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
People predicted that this is exactly what would happen with Secure Boot. The initial support would be optional and after a time and the phasing out of older hardware the support would become mandatory. Microsoft moving to a mandatory secure boot would fall right in line with these predictions.
The next gambit in secure boot is to disallow the user putting in their own signing keys. From that point forward the only way to get an OS on a computer is with Microsoft's signature. Secure boot could be a good thing if the user was allowed total control, but microsoft shows their true goal here, which is to take total control of the PC market. Many forget that secure boot was devised at a time when Microsoft was first facing a new Linux OS challenger that they couldn't defeat with their traditional tactics. Many people don't consider this timing to be coincidental.
Of course it will work.
This is essentially another form of DRM and as you well know that was and is still highly successful and completely crushed all piracy. People still actively seek out products that say "DRM Included" just so they can have the safety and security of knowing that a large corporate is having its own best interests protected at the expense of your product's usability.
Anyone with a marketing background will tell you this is a FANTASTIC idea guaranteed to succeed...if you pay them enough...
But seriously now.
The general livestock will buy the "coolest" and/or "cheapest" option and wont understand what the fuck is going on as per usual. It success or failure will be based on whether this affects the price point of the product (i.e. making it cheaper) or detrimentally effect its "coolness". (like DRM did)
And DRM still exists and are some of the most profitable platforms around. e.g. Steam, Itunes, netflix, etc.
Furious self-flagellating trying to convince us how brilliant you are...
Or you just skip all the bullshit by not buying gimped hardware in the first place. Vote with your wallet and you will win eventually.
Free upgrades to carve out markets (Dumping, Limit Pricing), "we didn't do it, it was the OEM" hardware lock-ins (Exlusive Dealing, Tying)...looks like Microsoft is going back to it original business model.
I suppose its almost communist-like...so, it may be popular in China, until they nationalize the source code.
the server market cares about linux / VMware and dell can't risk having servers that only boot windows.
This seems like that, but for motherboards.
These, if made, will most likely be "Winbooks" - no, not WinBooks, but winbooks like chromebooks.
Probably come with 90 days Office 365. I can almost see the day when they're "free" as in beer, with a 4g cell modem (and 2 year subscription) in there as well.
New desktop, laptops or tablets (excluding Kindle E-readers and Fires) purchased from Amazon.com that are "dead on arrival," arrived in damaged condition, or is still in an unopened box can be returned for a full refund within 30 days of purchase.
Here is the source.
So, you cannot test to see if you can get to the boot menu and return the item without any cost.
What will have to be done is somewhere on Linux.org or gnu.org, a list is published of who is naughty and who is nice.
It doesn't matter what you buy. If the locked laptop is $10 cheaper than the one where you can install a hippie OS that nobody* uses anyway, then the majority of customers will choose the cheaper device, and manufacturers of more flexible hardware will lose out in the market. In the end your choice will be to buy a locked laptop or none at all, because nobody makes an unlocked laptop anymore, for a reasonable price at least.
*) except Open Source hippies
Secure Boot is clearly a clumsy means to lock out alternative OSs, and this announcement is the next step toward the untlimate in vendor lock-in.
Any OEM who doesn't implement the secure boot option (even on a single model) will face a wall of rage. I'm sure MS is offering the OEMs some type of poisoned candy to not implement it, though.
Make no mistake. This is a literal and direct attack on Linux. OEM's will not care about the few people who use Linux and will omit this ability essentially killing Linux off. This is Microsoft's attempt at the final nail in the coffin of Linux.
This isn't about Linux (although I'm sure Microsoft's hatred of Linux has something to do with it). People who buy a pre-built system from one of the big OEMs have no intention of installing an alternative OS, so this is a non-issue for them.
If you do buy a pre-built system from one of the big OEMs so you can put Linux on it, you're too stupid to be allowed near a computer.
Buy the components and build it yourself and you won't be bothered with any of this bullshit. Anyone who knows which end of a screwdriver to hold can easily do it.
Quite. This was forseen. This is just another whack of the mallet driving the thin end of the wedge a bit deeper.
First you had to turn off a feature that said "Secure Boot". How many standard users are going to turn that off?
Now there will probably be "considerations" for those who make their hardware less easy to boot Linux on.
"Oh, yes, fewer config options make things more reliable - less to misconfigure, less to go wrong - we prefer that kind of device, gives Windows a good name by being more reliable..."
It doesn't matter what you buy. If the locked laptop is $10 cheaper than the one where you can install a hippie OS that nobody* uses anyway, then the majority of customers will choose the cheaper device, and manufacturers of more flexible hardware will lose out in the market.
Exactly so.
The end result of this road is mad-expensive hardware for servers at a 500% price premium, and low end locked down hardware for consumers that can't boot "inconvenient" OSs that give the user control of their own computer.
People who say "but servers!" miss the point: the average Joe will get priced out of that market.
After that, it's not long until online gaming requires an "authenticated" system. Then banking and online shopping, because safety.
That's where this road goes. Just wait and watch.
Stallman came out against buying stuff at Amazon. I don't think he actually came out against returning them, which is what was said.
If you find yourself in the situation of having bought something from Amazon, received it, and felt less free, I think Stallman might agree that the right to return the item "is a freedom we can defend." Hopefully then you'll buy something somewhere else.
I know it isn't Amazon granting my right to return, it is consumer protection laws.
And the average person cares about what Stallman thinks because....???
Systemd linux will be the only one allowed
You will most likely also not be able to reinstall Windows 10 if anything goes wrong with the HDD. Because secure boot prevented me from even booting to a USB flash drive that contained the ISO/installer of Windows 10 tech preview on my Windows 8 tablet, had to disable it in order to install it.
Which means these devices/computers, when they fail, it's all over and you need to buy a new one. This in turn will make more people build their own PC.
F microsoft and any company who do not allow disable secure boot.
The FTC, who's job it is to pander to the needs of every monopoly put their hands in their pockets, as hardware that had once been open--was taken by Microsoft.
FTC, please get off of your knees for once, and do something.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
If I were an Evil Executive at Microsoft, my next gambit would be to apply some unofficial, off-the-record pressure to the OEMs to make sure they have no means of disabling secure boot. Requiring this outright would be legally risky, could come back to bite them in future antitrust cases, but nothing to stop them from some deniable hints that it might help get a cheaper license deal.
Yep, told you so.
I'd hope somebody keeps a public list of machines that are locked down. Although that probably won't keep the masses from buying.
This is "optional" for OEMs in the same way as they have the option to have MS break their legs or not.
The vast majority of PC buyers will never want the missing feature, and will be protected from social engineering attacks that would turn it off. As for a compromised OS bricking the system? Well, that's probably actually a good thing for most people. Much better than their bank account getting siphoned.
I don't know about you, but I really don't have time to put together a laptop from components...
How will I get my laptop when they start doing that? I need Linux for work.
I don't want to lock down to expensive Dell laptops.
Walk into the store with your phone recording. Ask the clerk if the computer's UEFI is locked, because you want to install Ubuntu.
If the clerk says yes, buy it. If it turns out you can't install Ubuntu then return it. Demand no restocking fee. If they balk play the recording.
Even better if the clerk says, yes I run Mint ( or something ) on the same computer at home. As if anyone believes that anymore.
When I tried to update the graphics drivers for my Lenovo laptop, I got undocumented errors and a rollback. Later, on a whim, I disabled UEFI, and the drivers installed with no problem. I re-enabled UEFI afterwards, and the system still runs fine.
So unless you trust your vendor to deliver absolutely PERFECT drivers that will NEVER need updating, you wouldn't want a system that prevents you from disabling UEFI.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I'd thought there would be a way for a system's owner to import their own keys to enable UEFI booting with the OS of their choice? Also, didn't I hear that the major Linux distros have such keys available already (although I don't know about implemented)?
SystemD takeover of all linux distros is one prong (makes linux not unix and thus not wanted on servers)
This is another prong.
A third is intel AMT (spyware in the hardware)
Microsoft is doing this at the NSA's request and our government will not launch any kind of antitrust investigation. All new computers must run an OS with a government backdoor installed.
No, no, no, you are paranoid and delusional to think that they will keep you from disabling secure boot. Microsoft only cares about your security and safety, and you're a conspiracy theorist if you think otherwise.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
Want to install Linux? Buy a Mac!
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Yeah, I have been delaying it. However, I have enough computers now that I can use maybe one with windows for non-steam games and the rest with linux and a windows virtual machine if need be for "special" (as in retarded) software I need still.
Stick it in your ear MS
This isn't about Linux (although I'm sure Microsoft's hatred of Linux has something to do with it). People who buy a pre-built system from one of the big OEMs have no intention of installing an alternative OS, so this is a non-issue for them.
They might not have such intentions at the time of purchasing the machine, but if they later decide to try some alternatives to the pre-installed Microsoft OS, they will find out that it is not possible because of the "secure boot" DRM. I have seen many people give up on Linux because of having unsupported hardware, which was previously bought without considering that compatibility with a non-Windows operating system could be an issue in the future.
You can bet your bottom dollar that any OEM that does this, will be banned from trading in the EU.
The vast majority of PC buyers will never want the missing feature, and will be protected from social engineering attacks that would turn it off. As for a compromised OS bricking the system? Well, that's probably actually a good thing for most people. Much better than their bank account getting siphoned.
And while they're happily patting themselves on the back for their purchase of a secure boot computer, they will continue to blythley visit evey malware infested site known.
For most people, its not about alternative operating systems.
Its about when they break the thing and bring it to me, and I cant fix it because I cant run any boot disks on it.
Microsoft is now saying that OEM hardware that doesn't allow disabling secure boot would still be "Windows 10 certified". What's in it for the OEM to do this? Why would they purposefully lock their customers out of a choice of OSes? I have a hard time seeing this happening for PCs. It seems more likely that this is actually intended for smaller-form-factor hardware like phones or tablets, similar to how Apple attempts to lock down the devices they sell. It's hard to say since all versions of the new OS are simply called "Windows 10".
Regarding PCs though, I can think of nothing that would generate a new anti-trust lawsuit faster than this. MS had better walk damn carefully here if they do ANYTHING that could be perceived as unfairly locking Linux and other OSes from PC hardware. Frankly, I think the first OEM to try this is going to generate a shitstorm of controversy the moment an unsuspecting user tries to install Linux in a secondary partition or to replace Windows altogether. While it's good to be aware of this and watch to see how things go, I don't think the sky is falling quite yet.
So, that being said... Can anyone explain to me why Microsoft can use the Secure Boot feature but Linux can't offer the same as an "out of the box" experience? Or why Windows can apparently be patched and continue to work, while Linux somehow can't? Is this true for Linux in general, or just for people who modify and compile their own kernel (which I'm guessing probably isn't that many)?
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Except the only difference between the locked laptop and the unlocked laptop is in the firmware, not the hardware. Given the fact that all current systems allow disabling Secure Boot we know that providing the option to disable Secure Boot is not technically infeasible (read difficult to do). So the price difference between a locked laptop and an unlocked laptop would be pennies at most when spread out across the number sold.
I have a hard time imagining that a company would have to spend more than $500 in their software engineers time to implement this particular feature, so if implementing it increases the sales of computers with that firmware by even 34 units, its paid for itself (assuming an average of $15 profit per computer sold, which is slightly lower than "TheGuardian.com" calculated in 2013 based on publicly available financial data.)
What will a locked secure boot loader (as opposed to one where UEFI can be switched off) do to the trade-in value for a used system?
Microsoft prohibited disabling UEFI Secure Boot on ARM devices back when Windows 8 support for them came out. And from what I have heard, this is one reason that old ARM hardware has a near zero value on the used equipment market. Meanwhile, x86 stuff still has a second life and some value.
Something to think about when selecting a Windows 10 system.
Have gnu, will travel.
I've been receiving batches of HP Probooks that have secureboot turned off by default. For the past couple years my staff had to turn off secureboot and uefi manually. I don't know if it's just HP or other manufacturers.
he knows better
Linux is not doomed. The OEMs will probably be open to other vendors. Red Hat and Ubuntu could probably get their keys recognized by the OEM and offer factory signed binaries. This would probably work just fine for the vast majority of Linux users.
Microsoft doesn't (currently) require this, but some third party may make locking secure boot a requirement for paying out a subsidy in return for having their their add-on software installed. Media player software comes to mind. The content industry would, at least indirectly, certainly be willing to spend some money to make the locked hardware a little bit cheaper and ensure its success in the market.
The end result of this road is mad-expensive hardware for servers at a 500% price premium, and low end locked down hardware for consumers that can't boot "inconvenient" OSs ...
So Red Hat and Ubuntu establish relations with consumer hardware vendors and offer factory signed binaries. Linux is not doomed. Linux kernel developers need to be careful about their motherboards but the vast majority of Linux uses would be just fine.
There should be a permanent sh!tlist pinned to the top of Slashdot with any vendor that promotes this scheme for "PCs".
Microsoft's long-time disruptive technology shark in the water was that they promoted a platform that was just open enough to let techies (and 3rd party vendors) on a budget customize the systems however they need. This is the essence of a "personal computer", for the MS camp at least. Now MS has jumped their own shark.
Their tepid claims of being FOSS-friendly are being shown as ultimately false. Like Apple, they still won't incorporate open A/V formats into their products and their OSes will tell you an inserted Linux-formatted volume "must be formatted before use". Heaven forbid if I ever give an EXT3 formatted flash drive to an Android user, and they decide someday to look at it with Windows. They are similarly hostile when it comes to Linux multiboot setups. Its wilful negligence that still reigns in Redmond and must be fought with tooth and nail to gain any concession.
And how necessary for security are these firmware-level lockouts?? They are not! Qubes OS employs a scheme that, in combination with a TPM, prevents a computer from being able to reproduce a chosen passphrase if its been tampered-with. No doubt, the MS excuse will be that the consumer or administrator can't be bothered to remember a sentence to verify system integrity.
I suggest rallying around vendors like this: https://www.crowdsupply.com/pu...
Eventually, we should pressure the market to open up the whole damn stack; We will probably be forced to.
The vast majority of PC buyers will never want the missing feature, and will be protected from social engineering attacks that would turn it off. As for a compromised OS bricking the system? Well, that's probably actually a good thing for most people. Much better than their bank account getting siphoned.
I think you mean its better for MS and vendor bank accounts, not ours.
Or Red Hat and Ubuntu establish relations with OEMs and see that factory signed Linux binaries work just fine. Would suck for kernel devs but would probably work just fine for most Linux users. Linux is not doomed.
Really with desktop sales as they are, the winning strategy is to make them even less attractive?
Who will even want to use a desktop when phones and tablets have the same horsepower? Why would anyone put up with this nonsense?
So those systems that are Windows 10 locked will be unable to run Linux. This is great for those suppliers that support Linux as they will effectively have less competition.
I bet microsoft has an agreement with OEMs to not really add that option. By "leaving" it to OEMs, microsoft can deflect any involvement in the matter to the OEMs. OEMs do not care about linux users anyway do no loss for them.
Make no mistake. This is a literal and direct attack on Linux.
This isn't about Linux. People who buy a pre-built system from one of the big OEMs have no intention of installing an alternative OS, so this is a non-issue for them.
We nearly all started with a pre-built system. What Microsoft want is to prevent someone with such a system from trying out Linux, perhaps with a live CD, and liking it.
I started with a pre-built (did not have the knowledge back then to try anything else) pe-loaded with Windows, but have built my own ever since running Linux. Microsoft wont stop me now or ever, I am a lost cause to them; but they'd love to stop others following my path. That is what this is about.
I'm not buying a crippled system. Are you?
>"So Red Hat and Ubuntu establish relations with consumer hardware vendors and offer factory signed binaries. Linux is not doomed. Linux kernel developers need to be careful about their motherboards but the vast majority of Linux users would be just fine."
And what about Mageia? And what about ...
As I said, the vast majority, not all, Linux users should be fine. The linpocalypse is not upon us. A few would need to be careful about their motherboards.
The "solution" is not to try and get everyone to play by the stupid secureboot "rules" that MS is trying to force on everyone. The solution is to have ALL machines give the owner of the machine the CHOICE to decide if they want secureboot on or off.
No. The "solution" is to give all buyers the option of buying a machine with or without secureboot locked down. There is nothing wrong with a buyer preferring to get a factory locked down box if they so choose.
Microsoft saying it is "optional" means it absolutely won't be optional when they start putting behind-the-scenes (and probably illegal) pressure on the OEM's to start the lockdown.
OEMs have already demonstrated a willingness to cater to the BYO hobbyist crowd. There is no reason to expect that consumer motherboards without a factory lock down will no longer be available.
What's in it for the OEM to do this? Why would they purposefully lock their customers out of a choice of OSes?
Rightly or wronly, perhaps they fear that their help lines will be tied up with people who have installed Linux (or are trying to) asking for help. Perhaps this happens - I do not know, but can imagine it can in some cases.
Now they will be able to say : "It can't be done, end of story, have a nice day." [Click]
How many standard users are going to turn that off?
How many "standard" users are going to install Linux, or even know what Linux is?
Once a user learns enough about Linux to want to install it they will undoubtedly know how to turn this feature off or install the correct keys.
don't worry, mr. evil executive and his legion of worker drones are already on that. first up will be at the low end - hardware that is getting windows for nothing, or close to it in order to compete with linux (and android, and ios for that matter) - those will be the first ones to be locked down to microsoft.
to this and future efforts of microsoft's in this arena... i have one thing to say: ''fuck you, microsoft''
I, and many others, predicted exactly this a few years ago. Boiling the Frog... sure, it was 'Optional' then.. the next step would be to encourage OEMs to make it on by default, then discourage turning it off, then PROHIBIT turning it off.
We're at the 2nd-last stage. Windows 11 or 12 will, mark my words, require OEMs to force UEFI on, with no way to turn it off.
What's more important is what the volume buyers (i.e., businesses) do. Many businesses bulk purchase hardware and re-image it. You can bet that 100+ machine purchase will generate a backlash when re-imaging it to Windows 7 so mission critical apps still work results in bricked machines.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> What's in it for the OEM to do this? Why would they purposefully lock their customers out of a choice of OSes?
Most likely because Microsoft will give them an additional discount. It is how MS controls the OEMs - do it this way or lose $5 discount on every one of the million PCs you will make this year. It worked for Netbooks.
> Regarding PCs though, I can think of nothing that would generate a new anti-trust lawsuit faster than this. MS had better walk damn carefully here if they do ANYTHING that could be perceived as unfairly locking Linux and other OSes from PC hardware.
Phones are generally locked out of other OSes. Windows RT devices are locked out. XBox is locked out (as are other consoles). At one time some modems and printers were locked out from other OSes. Why do you think that PCs are special ? It will, most likely, be specific models being sold as 'Windows 10 devices'. Other models will run still other OSes.
Of course Windows XP and 7 will also be locked out. Once in 10 there will be no going back.
Secure boot could be a good thing if the user was allowed total control, but microsoft shows their true goal here, which is to take total control of the PC market.
I know of at least one PC hardware OEM who won't likely play that game...
Pressure? Not at all. There'll just be a ... "discount" if you do. This has happened before, and it'll happen again. It's within M$'s nature to rub out its competitors by pressing every advantage; it can't help itself.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Windows and Microsoft died a few years ago. The general public are buying tablets using Android or iOS as an operating system
I am buying hardware in wholesale lots for internal corporate use.
Hardware the users will never own or be permitted to modify without approval from above.
Tell me why I don't want secure boot and an OS signed by Microsoft or one of the mainstream Linux distributions.
I am a retailer in the general consumer market where bare bones or dual boot has never sold worth spitt.
Tell me why I don't want a known-good OEM system install with an OS signed and badged by Microsoft or one of the mainstream Linux distributions.
The geek has piggy-backed on cheap OEM hardware built for the MSDOS and Windows ecosystem since 1981 --- and when Microsoft makes a decisive move, as it has with Win 10, the geek has to move with it.
Future motherboards will support secure boot. The mainstream Linux distributions will support secure boot --- ultimately, with a licensed key and not a hack-around.
What do you care what kind of hardware the "vast majority of PC buyers" who don't care about this feature use?
I'd never buy one but I'd want my mom to have one. Because I want it to run Windows forever AND I don't want any possibility of her being tricked into disabling it by a fake Microsoft support call from overseas or some other exploit, rendering the computer broken.
I think the main issue with this will be labeling - the OEMs won't bother to label their products as disable-able or not, and we'll all have to sort it out for ourselves, which puts a tremendous burden on the part of the buying community that does care.
Solution: Overwhelm customer support with inquiries regarding this setting for every piece of hardware that is undocumented.
I just purchased four Dells with Windows 8.1 from NewEgg along with 8.1 Professional for each to use in a business. I swapped out the HDDs for SSDs and installed using OEM licensed, legitimate 8.1 Pro media. None of them will run Professional, instead defaulting to fully registered 8.1 Basic.
They wont accept the Windows Product keys at all. Instead, they show completely different keys that must have been installed into the hardware. This occurs whether secure boot is turned on or off. I have a case number with MS to resolve this BS.
I also bulit a PC from parts and installed using a fifth copy of 8.1 Pro. It installed correctly and jumped right onto the domain. This is not about "copyright infringement". It is about control and squeezing customers for as much money as they can get.
The masses don't know and don't care. Maybe Slashdotters do, but we are going against the tide of lemmings stampeding for the cliff. Maybe we need two 'puters now. One 'puter where we do stuff for the man another for everything else.
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
Uhhh, last I checked, Linus has no problems with secureboot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
From my experience people that make 6 figures or higher are pretty much drooling morons in regards to pc's and Operating systems.
This is the precise reason my next laptop is probably going to be ordered from someone like System76 or Zareason. I shouldn't have to do this silly UEFI dance with offerings from major "Big-Box" OEM's just to install my choice of OS on what is supposed to be MY system. So why not avoid all the BS and buy a portable from a manufacturer which actually specializes in building Linux machines?
This space for rent!
Go buy a Steam Machine. There are already 15 vendors lined up to sell them. These OEMs are betting people are tired of this typical Microsoft BS. Prove them right and buy their machines and support their effort.
Are there any more companies that offer GNU/Linux out of box on lappies? Somehow, I do not trust the Dell's and HP's of this world.... What about desktops? Do you have to have Windows by default too when you buy a new motherboard? Anyone?
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
Meanwhile Microsoft uses and distributes a preview version of Windows Phone 10 for an Android device with an unlockable bootlader. Ironic, when an underdog Microsoft use all openness available, when not, squeeze any freedom so people get locked to them. The same Microsoft of all times.
Thanks, I'll have to stop having Amazon donate money to FSF every time I buy something there... BTW, how old is that? It looks like it was when Amazon mostly sold books.
Most likely because Microsoft will give them an additional discount. It is how MS controls the OEMs - do it this way or lose $5 discount on every one of the million PCs you will make this year. It worked for Netbooks.
I would think that doing this would open themselves up for another anti-trust lawsuit. Seriously, the 99% dominant player is paying OEMs to lock out the 1% player, the only real alternative for PCs? Both they and Google have gotten into anti-trust trouble for a hell of a lot less.
Doing what you suggested seems incredibly risky just to quash their "competition" which has never measured more than a statistical margin of error, and in a computer demographic of lessening importance, no less. However evil people may think MS is, I just don't think they'd be that stupid.
Who knows... maybe I'm overestimating them.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
No need for even that. Just tell people that there's no way of knowing whether systems that don't have secure boot have a malware hypervisor, and convince some big banks to give people some kind of brownie points for accessing their website or app or whatever from a secure boot computer.
until the secure boot controversy was diffused
Diffused through what? Or are you struggling with basic grammar?
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Poettering, save us!!
I hope they don't get a price break for locking it.
Twinstiq, game news
Fuck.
This whole think is made of fail.
Ya, I recently installed CentOS 7. Worked and installed fne using the factory keys, but vmware refused to launch since it needs to hook into the kernel, and I was unable to do anything about it
You can't "define" away the truth. It is not a conspiracy theory to say MS violated anti-trust laws in the past, nor has MS learned from their past failures, in and out of court. My only hope is that more, and more people will become DIY system builders, and build their own computers, and become empowerd with the right knowledge of PC's and all the choices we STILL have !.
This is that gambit. If you cannot turn secure boot off, you cannot alter the keys.
The problem is when big monied interests are successful at ridding the market of hardware that fits your needs in exchange for that which fits theirs. You know as well as I do that the general public won't consider this even a minor issue, never mind a deal-breaker when it comes to new hardware purchases.
By the time the public sees any problem with the amount of control that's been pulled away from them, it'll be far too late to do anything except start from scratch.
Add these to your list: System 76, Intel NUC, Dell (at least, the systems that you can order Linux preloaded on them), and mobo manufactures that sell to consumer system builders.
When we pointed this out years ago, the Microsoft trolls told us to stop being silly, because it was optional and Microsoft would never, ever think of changing that. Why, the very idea!
This is "optional" for OEMs in the same way as they have the option to have MS break their legs or not.
Solution: Buy from OEMs with no legs to break, like Arkadians, Terra-Fermians, Weebles, Bile Demons, or maybe Mr. Wobblyman.
Why would an OEM do this? Perhaps to get a discount when setting PCs with a copy of Windows 10 pre-loaded. When talking about desktop hardware, I seriously doubt Linux is the target; if it was, they should be going after server grade hardware, No, I suspect this about locking the Steam gaming platform out of the market.
Life is not for the lazy.
What do you care what kind of hardware the "vast majority of PC buyers" who don't care about this feature use?
Because hardware manufacturers are going to go after the largest part of the market possible, not cater to the fussy long tail of malcontents that need uncommon features like the ability to load their own OS. We've finally gotten to the point where I don't need to be incredibly picky over the hardware that I buy to ensure that it'll run Linux acceptably. I don't want to have to research through user forums for anecdotal evidence that some particular piece of hardware was mislabeled as not being locked down, and I don't really want hardware that I might have to break the warranty on to do something that I do with all of my hardware as a matter of course (shrink the Windows partition and throw Linux on the sucker). That is why I care about what the unconcerned masses are running.
Solution: Overwhelm customer support with inquiries regarding this setting for every piece of hardware that is undocumented.
As a last resort? OK, if it's the only way to get the hardware that I need. As a first choice of solution? I'd rather not.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Yeah, yeah. The sky is falling.... Except that it isn't. With signed bootloaders like shim, you can install or run any operating system yourself without changing the BIOS to disable Secure Boot at all.
Not being able to run a 3rd party OS was a concern with Windows 8. But the open source community have solved that problem. So being able to disable Secure Boot is no longer required.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
So why not avoid all the BS and buy a portable from a manufacturer which actually specializes in building Linux machines?
So who makes an affordable laptop PC that runs multi-window Linux? Stock Android isn't multi-window, as Android's CDD relies on a window management policy of all maximized all the time. And last time I checked, companies you mentioned charge an Apple premium and lack a variety of sizes. System76 doesn't have anything smaller than 14 inches, and even ZaReason doesn't have a 10 or 11 inch model. This makes Linux look big and clunky.
if you want a laptop, I'm afraid your options in the assemble-your-own department are somewhat lacking
There's no need to fear; MSI is here.
> mislabeled as not being locked down
Return defective. File chargeback if necessary.
It's about choice and future repairability. I bought the machine so I OWN IT. I don't want anyone making decisions what I can and cannot do with it. Maybe someone will get tired of their Windows PC constantly getting toolbars, adware, and other unwanted software installed and want to try an alternative. I work with seniors who have these problems all the time and are very frustrated by Windows. Why are people so willing to give up the right to change and fix things they bought and own to some mega-corporation? I'm glad I'm an old fart because I won't be around when everyone turns into sheeple.
Redhat Enterprise Linux 7 and reasonably recent versions of SUSE have cryptographically signed kernel and drivers that work similarly to Windows.
The expectation is that they will offer some incentives to hardware manufacturers to get them to remove the off switch.
This is less a flaw in UEFI, and more a flaw in the process for updating the graphics drivers.
You fuckloads are always talking about how great Linux is because it runs on your 900 watt Pentium 60 just fine. Keep doing that.
The issue is that as of Windows 10 certified hardware that ability will be *optional*. (And the concern is that Microsoft may offer some incentives for hardware vendors to remove the ability.)
As long as you get final say over who approves the software, then UEFI secure boot is great.
The issue is that Microsoft will be in control of what software is approved.
For now all x86 hardware still has the ability for you to disable secure boot and to load your own keys. What's changing is that this will be optional. Once that ability is removed, then that hardware will only boot software signed by Microsoft.
Freedom is, in all aspects, "pining for the fjords." With regards to the manufactures of gadgets, it isn't in their interest to allow even the slightest bit of freedom. You can't install your own OS on the device you paid for, you can't install software that wasn't blessed by the prevailing curator of the local app store. We're moving towards a society in which you (as a consumer) don't own anything, it's leased or rented or provided "gratis", so long as you remain in accordance with whatever contractual terms they wish to impose. And before the Desktop centric crowd chimes in with "I own my box!", sure, you do now. But the current business practice is to retain ownership of everything and dole out access with as many restrictions as possible. It isn't that big of a leap to presume that sometime in the future you'll only be renting your motherboard, and may even have to pay extra to enable more memory access or "Premium CPU interconnects". Hell, you might be already! Have you read through the entirety of the terms of use provided with every component present in your machine? Do you really think Intel has your best interest at heart? These corporate scumbags can stuff end user agreements with whatever they want, knowing full well that practically no one is either going to read it, or have the financial means to fight it out in court.
Once the BIOS is locked down, why wouldn't manufacturers require extra payments for increased CPU throughput or maximum available RAM? Sure, your new mobo comes with slots for 64 GB, but it's only licensed for 16GB, any more requires an extra payment. These components are getting so sophisticated that bits and pieces of what used to be considered standard functionality, parts which were once hardwired, will be doled out as premium add-ons and DLC-like upgrades. There's nothing stopping them, it's only a matter of time before each and every aspect of the computing environment is held ransom by one company or another.
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
Much better than their bank account getting siphoned.
Unless, of course, it's OEM's doing the siphoning. Surely they don't want cyber-criminals to get an edge on a protection racket they could themselves get evolved in. Let's charge premiums for CPU clock speed, maximum install-able RAM, etc. The possibilities are endless, and if the existing tablet/phone manufacturers are any indication, PC makers are lagging behind the extreme monetizing techniques available to a modern day PC maker.
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
Pressure? No. "Discount", yes.
And considering the amount of shitware that was on my last desktop I didn't build myself (Acer, circa 2007), manufacturers apparently don't care about consumer opinion since that thing ran slower than 486 molasses brand new out of the box.
In a few years, the irony may be that Apple is the most open of major PC makers.
What if some brilliant young programmer out there decides he wants to try his/her hand at creating his own OS? They'll never make it past the boot stage unless they puts their efforts into hacking the secure boot out of the system, which might put them off the idea entirely.
BYO open options will still exist. Various motherboard vendors already cater to the BYO crowd. Plus that young student could run Linux in a VM on the locked down Windows box. Or they could hack around on some non-PC device like a Raspberry Pi. Many options exist.
corporations are a government fiction. dissolve microsoft. maybe break it up into small companies for each product. execute all the executives and start over.
Actually, I will simply blacklist any company - and all their subsidiaries/parent companies - from my supplier index if they ship with secure boot locked. I've already ditched Dell (design for maintenance issues), Lenovo (Spyware), and Sony (spyware/root-kit)... and paid the salaries for a couple more employees by working with manufacturers willing supply hardware to my specs.
The impact on Dell, Lenovo, and Sony has probably been unnoticed by their accountants. But I don't care. It's the principle of the thing. My IT's have enough nightmares to deal with, and I'd rather they deal with what is important.
Get enough people refusing to buy crap hardware, and the problem will go away.
he'll require the bios to run systemd next.
WTF?! I suppose you ride a unicorn to work too?
If true, that is seriously fucked up.
Actually, in case no-one else noticed, Microsoft already requires the secure boot to be WAY more restrictive than described here - in some cases.
When you buy a new computer with Windows 8, it's likely that Microsoft already REQUIRED the manufacturer to make it impossible to disable Secure Boot (or in general, install any other OS), it's right there in the "System requirements":
"[On an ARM system,] it is forbidden to enable Custom Mode. Only Standard Mode may be enabled."
(source: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/jj128256 )
Custom basically means "user can install any operating system" (also explained elsewhere in the document)
Nothing that can't be defeated.
Some people would say this is anti-competitive behaviour from MS and that the consumer affairs machinery (ie. "big government") should kick into action but so far they have not.
Let's hear from some libertarians - this is a prime example of a company doing whatever they want to remove all other choice in a market and there is no interference to them doing that. It sounds like a libertarian's wet dream to an outsider to me, but is it? What do they really think of the biggest player reducing all the options for everyone else?
I'm hoping for an honest answer with some actual wisdom behind it instead of insults from the naive that never considered the implications of their "philosophy".
Why would this reimaging fail? Window 7 should be able to play nice with UEFI Secure Boot [not that it affects me].
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Linus Torvalds has gone on record saying that Tivoization is OK. I don't see how he can rant against bootloader locking without backtracking on that stance.
And the average person cares about what Stallman thinks because....???
Because the average person can't think for themselves.
Oh wait, you're right, they also don't care if anybody is thinking.
Perhaps only the above average care.
I'm pretty certain MS will just make it so that if they make the device windows 10 only then the OEM gets the license for free.
so unlockable will then mean a fee.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I think that Business machines will be exempted here. ... I see big business has the bg stick in that arena.
The corporate I work for has their own licencing server and loads their own crappified version of Windoze 7, also all our PC have UEFI disabled and secure boot
Let's be generous and give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt. Suppose this were some "security" feature (and not just the desperate attempt to cling to their illegal ongoing monopoly that we know it is).
Even then, is this a good idea? Wouldn't someone who wants your data simply take a hammer and smash open the case and rip out the hard drive, ripping off your fingernails till you give them the passwords they need to decrypt your data?
I don't see how that's supposed to be appealing.
welll....since I AM A PURCHASING MANAGER this MAKES MY JOB EASIER TO say yes TO the techies and BAN HARDWARE. MANUFACTURERS THAN FORCES VENDOR LOCK IN UPON US...so WE WILL CULL ANY MANUFACTURER AND BIDS WHICH TRIES TO FORCE THIS THING ON US....
Microsoft is dying ... the last gasp of a dying !!!
Various motherboard vendors already cater to the BYO crowd
Portable devices from traditionally locked down platforms don't really have that option. For those that do exist, they're usually built with older/low-end parts.
Plus that young student could run Linux in a VM on the locked down Windows box
That doesn't help when the issue requires direct hardware access.
Or they could hack around on some non-PC device like a Raspberry Pi.
See my first point. The Raspberry Pi is a 2nd-tier device that has still-unresolved USB issues.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Read the OP.
Apple doesn't do SecureBoot, they just make their devices a PITA to maintain.
Between pentalobes, glue-fastened glass, components in hard-to-reach locations, and active hostility towards self-maintenance, Apple could claim prior art on the concept of SecureBoot.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
What Microsoft want is to prevent someone with such a system from trying out Linux, perhaps with a live CD, and liking it.
Oh yeah, sure. Because of the MASSIVE increase in Desktop Linux market share?
Where and how did "MASSIVE increase in Desktop Linux market share" come in to this? I never said anything about it, and never forsee such a thing happening either. WTF has it got to do with this topic?
More to the point, Microsoft are fanatical about trying to stop even a handful of people from using anything but Windows. Microsoft rate them as criminals, and are like some fat Roman emperor hearing that some people at the edge of the World are not sacrificing half their cattle and virgins twice a day in homage to him, and sending a legion there to exterminate them. Every user is "important" to Microsoft, no matter how few.
When it has more specific component options (read: MXM-based graphics, better displays, and less garish chassis), then it might be realistic to call that "assemble your own".
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
What's in it for the OEM to do this? Why would they purposefully lock their customers out of a choice of OSes?
We're talking about the same OEMs that sell computers with "broken" ACPI settings such that they don't work on non-Windows OSes... unless you have the OS identify itself as Windows, right? You really need to ask why they would break non-Windows OSes for no apparent benefit? It's hard to tell if their benefit is a bribe from Microsoft or just pure incompetence.
So, that being said... Can anyone explain to me why Microsoft can use the Secure Boot feature but Linux can't offer the same as an "out of the box" experience? Or why Windows can apparently be patched and continue to work, while Linux somehow can't? Is this true for Linux in general, or just for people who modify and compile their own kernel (which I'm guessing probably isn't that many)?
Supporting Secure Boot isn't a problem. Linux does. Or rather, the major distros do, since it's bootloader-level support that matters, not kernel-level. The problem is the signing keys. Microsoft holds the (de facto?) default signing key for Secure Boot. To boot Linux with Secure Boot you have two options: (1) get Microsoft to sign your bootloader or (2) get the computer to accept additional keys other than just Microsoft's (or (3) disable Secure Boot). This article is about getting rid of options (2)/(3), leaving Microsoft in control of what OSes your computer can boot.
It's a political issue of what keys are trusted, not a technical issue.
That's the mainframe model. You pay for the CPU you use - measured in MIPs if I recall correctly. The machine might be capable of x MIPs but you can't use them all because you haven't paid for them. It's like buying a quad core machine but only being able to use one core unless you pay to unlock the others.
Application CPU bound? Pay more to be able to access the CPU power in the hardware you already own. And then be prepared to pay all the software vendors more because you're now running it on a more powerful machine...
So it's nothing new, it's been the standard operating model in that world forever.
Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
Should have a physical switch (DIP switch?) for enable/disable. Then no hack (some phone phisher might) could get around it, but anyone who wants to install any other OS can go right ahead and do it.
Some of newegg's return policies are garbage.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Please come back to us.
Even the veil of unfettered righteousness is better than the vacuum of its omission.
1. Company A launch devices where the hardware is only allowed to boot their own OS, which can only execute software developed by developers who pays company A, this is implemented using cryptos in different ways. Bugs are found but the latest version is in general 100% locked down.
2. Company B, that has monopoly on the desktop OS market, gets an idea.
3. ?
4. PROFIT.
Get ready for a 12 inch plastic Windows tablet with TouchWiz shell, 3 Web browsers, 2 app stores, 50 unremovable pre-installed apps and 1.2gb free space in base model. Great move by Microsoft to let OEMs add value that users can not unwisely remove!
That's a descriptive word I know gsm phone manufacturers work hard to distance themselves from, even more where it's more true.
I was nice of Microsoft to play along until the secure boot controversy was diffused and then stop backing openess. I'm not sure RMS would be completely surprised.
Seriously though, we have the choice, and the only thing that will maintain that freedom is that we express it with our dollars. Manufacturers are at OUR mercy, not the other way around.
If you can't get to the boot menu when you play with it in the store, don't buy it. Amazon will let you return nearly anything. This is a freedom we can defend.
I would have the US Government block sales of all computer systems in which secure boot could not be disabled. If I want to run XP as a control program for my cash register, I certainly need to bypass secure boot. Ditto if I want to run a Linux OS which does not support secure boot.
Do I need to take a RedHat or Debian based distribution, perform a minimal install and replace the guts with the other OS? Let Ubuntu or Fedora bypass the UEFI security, and let me do what I want with my hardware. I had to purchase, not lease the hardware.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Moron.
Question. For corporate clients that re-image new desktops or laptops. What if they wanted to put their own Win 7 image on? Would it still work?
As for a compromised OS bricking the system? Well, that's probably actually a good thing for most people. Much better than their bank account getting siphoned.
Secureboot is not and never was a hinderance to the bad guys. Once malicious code is run; secureboot can be defeated. It's security theatre.
They can keep their big business buyers happy by distributing an exclusive 500k file under Non-Disclosure Agreement they will run pre-imaging to unlock their BIOS for the desired OS.
Like you I've installed Windows 10 technical preview on a laptop ... and then gone on to install Xubuntu alongside it.
It worked, with the added bonus that Win 10 actually fixed the borked Win 8 OEM installation in the first place.
I didn't know what the problem was with Win 8, I spent a little time trying to fix it, then went and bought my wife another cheap laptop.
I've been tinkering with PCs / Laptops for years, but I'm at the opposite end of the scale, a rank amateur.
I was as concerned and upset by the concept of being blocked from installing Linux as anyone here : I've dual booted every new PC / Laptop I've bought in the last 5 or 6 years.
The way to install Xubuntu was to get into Win 10 PC Settings / Update and Recovery / Advanced Startup / Use a device, and boot a USB device (in this case a USB DVD). ... )
These settings still exist, even in Build 9926, the latest I have downloaded. (Notifications / All Settings / Update and
I don't know if this is the "shim" I've seen others here refer to, but it appears Grub takes over and is the first to boot. One of the options in it is to start the Windows boot loader.
So, even if it is mandatory, is it that big an issue? I understand many O/Ss don't have a PK, but someone has already suggested using something like a Redhat or Ubuntu kernel to get past secure boot.
Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post
A possible bug in Foxconn boards BIOS affects Linux ACPI
Windows Update drivers bricking USB serial chips
One thing I find myself wondering about is whether we shouldn’t try and make the "ACPI" extensions somehow Windows specific.
You will end up having to blacklist every company, giving up technology entirely, and going to live in a hut on a mountain.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Oh, and how did they do that? By using a Live CD. And what do you call a Live CD in a world with mandatory Secure Boot? A goddamn coaster, that's what!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I'll give you a hint: it's green, rectangular, and under the table.
Even with Republicans having a majority in both houses of Congress?
Because the entire point of Free Software is that every individual user could be customizing his kernel and thus needing his own personal key.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Every user is potentially a kernel dev, which is the entire point of Free Software!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
That fat hippie died?!
Every user is potentially a kernel dev, ...
In exactly the same way that Bill Maher is potentially a future pope.
...which is the entire point of Free Software!
Its not the mission of major PC vendors to promote FOSS, it is possibly their mission to supply consumers with more secure PCs.
If a person aspires to be a kernel dev they can build their own PC, use a non-PC like a Raspberry Pi, run Linux in a VM, etc.
Don't forget that OEMs now sell lots of computers with no CSM boot option and only ACPI 5.0 tables which Windows 7 and below can't read and crash on boot claiming that the computer isn't ACPI-compliant. Even if you try to boot Windows 7 via UEFI, the ACPI 5.0 tables will block it completely, so such machines are forcibly Windows 8 or higher with no option to downgrade available.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Are Google Chromebooks our salvation out of this situation? On both my ASUS Chromebox and Acer C720P Chromebook, it has been possible to set up a 'dual boot' system i.e. legacy "SeaBIOS" stuff. If this is a solution, and Google continues to exert influence over Chrome-device manufacturers, and sufficient specs/price/features/models are made available to satisfy non-Windows users...?
Remember, the future is about mobile. This is about phone and tablet manufacturers being able to market their devices as designed for Windows 10. For better or worse very few people care that phones and tablets are locked down. If you are serious about challenging that, you should start with Apple, not Microsoft.
I also foresee a new way for malware - intentionally brick the machines for a specific vendor unless they cough up money.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Not only will you not be able to install an alternate OS (Linux) but you will not be able to backgrade to an earlier version of Windows (Win7) that you already paid for.
No, not in the same way! For the purpose of this conversation, "kernel dev" includes even people who do something as simple as `make menuconfig` or anything else that causes the checksum of the kernel to change.
That's actually a lot of people, including all Gentoo users, VMware users, anybody who needs to enable support for weird hardware, anybody who needs a non-free driver that can't be distributed already compiled in, etc.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I wonder if this is where Microsoft tries to figure out how to skirt anti-trust issues and incent OEMs into locking their systems.... kick-backs, under the table finagling, etc. The real question is this - if Microsoft is so altruistic and trustworthy, why allow a system to be locked to just one OS in the first place?
There are two types of people in the world; those who believe there are two types of people, and those who don't.
Up until now, there have been few vendors to choose pre-installed Linux. IMO, the most usual thing is for people wanting to run Linux is to buy it with Windows pre-installed, boot it straight into a Linux install disk, and wipe off Windows - perhaps with the additional step of reclaiming the cost of Windows included with the purchase.
IINM, that won't be possible, so we need a 'none' option on the OS choice list before we buy it, then they don't install anything and just ship it directly to us.
In some ways, that seems a lot simpler, if we can get the likes of Dell, Lenovo/etc to do that. Maybe they will start selling more pre-installed Linux desktops - there have been some, but the choice was limited and there was always the 'wipe Windows' option.
Max.
And the site they downloaded that Live CD from will have instructions for turning off Secure Boot, or adding their key to the BIOS.
Well that sounds like a great selling
counter-point for the M$ ad-men's buy-in:
"Our boxen are so secure that if you want to
ditch us and try something else your box is a
paperweight"
You're so secure "All your devices belong to us!"
Funny, this is how some mainframes worked in the old days.
When you bought more RAM, a guy with a physical key showed up, turned it in the lock, entered an arcane command or two, and your mainframe had more megabytes. Nothing extra was installed.
And what that means is that nobody who doesn't want Linux anyway will use that Live CD, because they won't want to look through the instructions to find their machine and go through what sounds like an arcane process.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Quackintosh is still ruled by a fucking self-appointed moralist who is already dead! Steve Blob's puritanical views still dictate policy from beyond the grave.