Another way around Linux's Windows SecureBoot problem
Summary: Yes, it's true that you won't be able to easily install Linux, or any other operating system, on Windows 8 PCs, but there is a way around the problem. Open hardware for open-source software.

Here's the problem: A Windows 8 PC must be locked down with the UEFI (Unified Extensible Firmware Interface) set with Microsoft's secure boot on. In turn, that means you won't be able to easily install Linux or any other operating system, such as Windows 7 or XP, on a Windows 8 system. Since the vast majority of desktop Linux installations start with a PC running Windows that's going to be a real headache. So, what can you do about it?
Well, Fedora, Red Hat's community Linux distribution decided to co-operate with Microsoft's key signing service, Verisign. Thus, in the Fedora plan, Fedora will create its own Windows 8 system compatible UEFI secure boot key using Microsoft's own system.
This made a lot of Linux fans unhappy. Matthew Garrett, a Red Hat developer, explained that “it's cheaper than any realistic alternative would have been. It ensures compatibility with as wide a range of hardware as possible and it avoids Fedora having any special privileges over other Linux distributions.” Linus Torvalds, Linux's founder and guiding light, take: was "I'm certainly not a huge UEFI fan, but at the same time I see why you might want to have signed bootup etc.”
Canonical, Ubuntu Linux's parent company, came up with its own answer. Canonical's secure boot solution (PDF Link) is to “provide keys and signed boot images for use with secure boot functionality.” In short, Ubuntu will come up with its own independent key that's compatible with the “Windows 8 Hardware Certification Requirements [WIN8HCR]."
Garrett complained that this is essentially Microsoft's same lock-in scheme “except with an Ubuntu key instead of a Microsoft one.” Mark Shuttleworth, Ubuntu's founder, responded, that he didn't think either plan was ideal, but “Secure Boot retains flaws in its design that will ultimately mandate that Microsoft's key is on every PC (because of core UEFI driver signing). That, and the inability of Secure Boot to support multiple signatures on critical elements means that options are limited but we continue to seek a better result.”
Wait a moment there. Will the advent of Windows 8 really mean that Microsoft's secure boot lock-in will be on every PC? Cathy Malmrose, CEO of the Linux PC vendor ZaReason doesn't think it should.
Malmrose told me “With UEFI's Secure Boot around the corner, we are hoping to raise awareness that Linux distributors don't need to sign with Microsoft [or use their secure boot. Computers that are rooted with open bootloader are available. That's what we ship.”
She knows, “UEFI's Secure Boot is implemented at OEM (originial equipment manufacturer) level, all new PCs purchased (with the intent of loading your favorite distro) will have Secure Boot." This cripples them as far as Malmrose is concerned.
“Yes, you can disable it. But 'disabling' something that's 'secure' makes you bad.” Besides as Malmose told me, “the keystroke(s) needed to get Linux to run on machines post-2012 will be simple at first, becoming increasingly complex at a non-shocking rate. It's a monumental shift at OEM level.” Malmrose fears that this will desktop Linux “too difficult to new users, [and this will cause] slow death by suffocation” for Linux.
So what can Linux users do instead? Malmrose thinks we can avoid a "Greek Tragedy “ by recognizing that Linux needs hardware vendors, like ZaReason, “who can keep things open, [who keep our collective foot in the door at the factories.” Malmrose insists that it isn't about her particular company. “There is 0 profit.* If we ever did have profit, we would donate to support the EFF, FSF, Software Freedom Conservancy, LinuxFests, GNOME Foundation, various conferences, the works. Hopefully someday there will be but most months it's a stretch to make payroll.”
So why take this stance? Cory Doctorow, in describing ZaReason, put it well, “ZaReason's mission isn't just to make free/open hardware: it's to ensure that there is always a free-as-in-free-speech option for your computing needs.”
She's right. We need to support Linux-friendly hardware vendors. There is no law that says computers with UEFI must use Secure Boot. Yes, Microsoft may want it that way, but if we support companies that offer open systems we can still get open hardware to go with our open-source software.
Related Stories:
Shuttleworth on Ubuntu Linux, Fedora, and the UEFI problem
Linus Torvalds on Windows 8, UEFI, and Fedora
Microsoft to lock out other operating systems from Windows 8 ARM PCs & devices
Linux Foundation proposes to use UEFI to make PCs secure and free
Microsoft to stop Linux, older Windows, from running on Windows 8 PCs
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Not many really see it as a problem
The question no one has been able to answer to any real satisfaction is why does computer hardware have to adhere to different standards then every other item in the world?
It's not like I can bolt any Ford part onto my Chevy, or parts from one flat screen into another....
It's not about Chevy / Ford -- It's about locking the hood of the car
It's about owning what you bought.
If you want a Linux box
Keep hearing
No, you got this wrong
Every major OEM has stated that the consumer will have the ability to turn off secure boot without affecting the Windows 8 Certification.
could you do everyone a favor and post
I posted even newer information below
"System.Fundamentals.Firmware.UEFISecureBoot
18. Mandatory. Enable/Disable Secure Boot. On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup"
Originally, MS left it up to the OEM to decide whether or not they wanted to include the ability to turn off secure boot. All major OEMs at that point stated they would. It is no longer relevant to post that link because MS has now stated that they MUST provide this ability if they want their hardware to be certified for Windows 8. And that is the quote to keep in mind here when SJVN talks about MS forcing all computer makers to do this: IF THEY WANT THEIR HARDWARE TO BE CERTIFIED FOR WINDOWS 8. It is not a requirement of Windows 8 that Secure Boot be available. It is only a requirement to put a little sticker on the box. No Secure Boot? No problem. OEMs can install Windows and sell it. No problem.
Soft power
interesting
You just gave the reason for secure boot,
elusive "average users" use a multi-boot system? I'm not talking about
you or myself, but just the ordinary Joe or Jane Public. I doubt that there
are more than just a handful of people that purchase any computer that
decide to run multiple operating systems. That's who the target market
for secure boot is...the some 90 percent or so of desktop/laptop buyers
that just want a computer to do what ever it they want to do.
You doubt that the average public
We also know it is you opinion to the facts you proclaim, there is no legitimate poll to what folks want if they know all the facts of the OS they use or the availability of any other OS.
foolish question
Average is the 98% that don't use Linux. That could be Apple or Windows.
The average person buys a computer, takes it home, plugs it in and uses it. Dual Boot is not average.
If you think Dual Boot is average, you live in a strange world!
Dual boot is the norm with Linux desktop users
Why would dual boot be the norm even with Linux DT users?
As for the normal computer user, Linux is not the norm. The norm is Apple or Windows. Linux is a distant third, far distant on the desktop.
You do live in a strange world
Outside US Linux is the number 2 in desktop...
http://www.osnews.com/story/21035/Ballmer_Linux_Bigger_Competitor_than_Apple/
Just read the article, watch the picture by Microsoft. You'll surely see that M$ estimated that Linux had some 5% and Mac some 4% of pc's...
I think it's time for you to take your US-specs away to watch this great big world with global eyes. Apple is very small player ouside countries like US, Canada and UK.
I consider myself an advanced user
If you're a gamer or use NF, you will probably need a Win dual-boot. Other than that, 90% of people who say they "need Windows" are simply lying or are unaware of all the FOSS alternatives out there. There are a few corner cases (like AutoCAD or proprietary business software), but they are the rarity, especially in home environments.
Keep it secure without disabling.
One thing that will definitely be lost...
While probably true
Since so many Linux users go to the store and plug in a stick to test Linux on their floor models, this will really cripple Best Buy, right?
punish the rest