ie8 fix
madison

Hardware 2.0

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Microsoft isn't the enemy when it comes to blocking Linux on Windows 8 PCs

By | October 19, 2011, 4:26am PDT

Summary: … it’s the OEMs you have to watch out for.

The Free Software Foundation seems to have caused a bit of a stir the other day by calling on PC users to stand up for their freedom to install free software onto their systems and demand that OEMs be responsible in how they use the UEFI ’secure boot’ feature on Windows 8 PCs.

Note: For background on UEFI and ’secure boot’ check out some of my previous posts on the matter:

Yes, UEFI ’secure boot’ could lock out Linux from Windows 8 PCs
Microsoft confirms that UEFI ’secure boot’ might lock out Linux and older versions of Windows from new PCs
Windows 8 certification will make it ‘difficult or impossible’ to install Linux on PCs

This call to action seems to have created a rift here on ZDNet. In the ‘Open Source’ corner is Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, who calls UEFI a ‘cage’ and urges everyone to sign the FSF’s petition so that ‘your PC remains in your hands and not Microsoft’s’. In the ‘Windows’ corner is Ed Bott, who wonders who ’Linux fanatics’ want to make ‘Windows 8 less secure’.

Can’t we all just get along? No … oh well, it was worth a try.

Note: It’s worth pointing out that ’secure boot’ wouldn’t just prevent PC owners from installing Linux on their system, but it would also block the installation of older versions of Windows too.

See, the problem here is that in order to see the real issue, you have to look beyond party lines. If you see this issue as a ‘Windows vs. Linux’ or ‘Windows vs. Open Source’ issue, then you FAIL, and you FAIL hard. Why? Because the ‘enemy’ (and I use that word loosely) here isn’t Microsoft or Linux or even ’secure boot’ - it’s the PC OEMs who will be responsible for building the Windows 8 PCs.

It is true that Microsoft is making ’secure boot’ a mandatory part of the Windows 8 logo certification program, which means that if any OEM wants to slap that Windows 8 logo on the PCs they’re shoveling out of the door, those systems are going to have ’secure boot’ enabled. And no big-box OEM is going to sell uncertified PCs because that would put them at an enormous disadvantage from a marketing point of view.

So ’secure boot’ is coming.

But what’s important to note here is that Microsoft making ’secure boot’ mandatory isn’t part of some grand plan at world domination. ’Secure boot’ is a good thing because it will be a valuable line of defense against rootkit malware infection. Rootkits are nasty are damn hard to remove, so anything that blocks them from being installed is a good thing. Bott is right, ’secure boot’ will make Windows 8 more secure.

But …

Next –>

(Image creditSilly Little Man)

Topics

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Disclosure

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

All opinions expressed on Hardware 2.0 are those of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Every effort is made to ensure that the information posted is accurate. If you have any comments, queries or corrections, please contact Adrian via the email link here. Any possible conflicts of interest will be posted below. [Updated: February 23, 2010] - Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other actual/potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted so far on this blog.

Biography

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology -- whether that be by learning to program, building a PC from a pile of parts, or helping them get the most from their new MP3 player or digital camera.

Adrian has authored/co-authored technical books on a variety of topics, ranging from programming to building and maintaining PCs. His most recent books include "Build the Ultimate Custom PC", "Beginning Programming" and "The PC Doctor's Fix It Yourself Guide". He has also written training manuals that have been used by a number of Fortune 500 companies.

Adrian also runs a popular blog under the name The PC Doctor, where he covers a range of computer-related topics -- from security to repairing and upgrading.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
114
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Microsoft isn't the enemy when it comes to blocking Linux on Windows 8 PCs
~MIRV~ Updated - 31st Oct
@Uralbas: You're living in fairyland. If consumers really had choice, Microsoft would be broke. Unless you're into building your own system from parts (which I do), its very difficult to buy a new PC (let alone laptop) without the latest version of Windows preinstalled. OEMs don't have the choice either, as unless they meet the demands of the Redmond mafia, they don't get their OEM Windows licenses as cheap, which means the OEM either loses profit or increases price. If you could go to any computer shop and choose from your list which OS you wanted (if any), that would be choice. When the choice is Windows8, Windows 8 or erm... Windows 8 (or go build your own), what kind of choice is that? OEMs will fall in line with Microsoft, because their bottom line depends on it. Microsoft generates their market afterall. OEM licensing of Windows means that if users need to upgrade their Windows - due to lack of support from Microsoft - they need to buy a new computer (even buying a copy of Windows separately is out of the question as newer Windows is always designed to require newer hardware). It's a rort, with both Microsoft and OEMs teaming up to devise ways to cheat more and more money out of consumers. There's even less choice with Apple (due to limited hardware offings), but that's a whole different story.

@heyu: dude, you sound like a dumb **** teenager. have you even used linux? i mean, really? for anything other than trying to install call of duty (for windows)? seriously mate, get a friggin clue.
0 Votes
+ -
That call will last less than 30 seconds. The OEM operator will say, "your machine is infected, sorry, not our problem" and hang up.

Sorry, I'm with Ed on this. It's not up to MS to tell OEM's or even firmware makers what options to offer. And when I look at the menus I get from my current PCs BIOS configuration, Secure Boot on/off would fit right in.
0 Votes
+ -
Simple Avoid Windows 8
Uralbas Updated - 19th Oct
Now you do have choices:

A) Android
B) MacOS
C) Linux
D) Old Windows

I am not going to use Windows 8 Period. MS can keep their OS. With Android and IOS there are choices, this is a fact MS has failed to recognize and like smart phones before. By the time they react it shall too late and Windows will become irrelevant!

Proof, just look at how much market share Mobile and Apple currently hold. MS activations keep declining in all fronts.
0 Votes
+ -
Which planet are you from?
owlnet 19th Oct
@owlnet
@Uralbas

Well, there certainly are choices. Always have been. Feel free to use whatever best suits your needs.
@Uralbas
Choices a and b don't actually run on PCs, do they?
(yes I know there's an Android emulator, but it still needs Windows)
Besides, this is for *new* PCs that will come with Windows 8 *pre-installed*.
@CartlitosLx: Actually...

Android-x86
@Uralbas Are you kidding me,,,linux has worse fragmentation than even android. I'd take windows any day of the week. Installing certain proprietary apps is a no brainer in windows, compared with the nutty way linux deals with it . Ubuntu even calls it 'restrictive', as if thats a fair term for a company that went out of its way to support linux . Real nice, but then thats often that 'tude' you get within the linux world.

Be a fanboy all you want and I get that, but lets be serious here. Windows is for serious people, not geeks who want to 'tinker' and play with the command line. Many linux OS's tell you, that to 'fiix' things or even initially do some things, you must drop to terminal and deal with it. Your average computer user, has no desire to deal with that. Why do you think macosX is on the rise in market share , leaving linux in the proverbial dust ?

Linux is 'restrictive', windows is not.

Try playing your favorite games in linux, without bugs and slowness and you get why linux is problematic for millions of users, and why its marketshare is tanked.

Not to mention Linux playing with mono, against warnings from the FSF. Real mature.
@Uralbas : Last I checked "Android" ain't a PC OS. Maybe you mean buggy Chrome OS?

And what does the mobile market have to do with Windows 8? Shows you are a bit biased against Microsoft. Did they sack your pirated copy of Windows 7? happy
@Uralbas

What is "OLD Windows"? Sorry but yea you
@Uralbas: You're living in fairyland. If consumers really had choice, Microsoft would be broke. Unless you're into building your own system from parts (which I do), its very difficult to buy a new PC (let alone laptop) without the latest version of Windows preinstalled. OEMs don't have the choice either, as unless they meet the demands of the Redmond mafia, they don't get their OEM Windows licenses as cheap, which means the OEM either loses profit or increases price. If you could go to any computer shop and choose from your list which OS you wanted (if any), that would be choice. When the choice is Windows8, Windows 8 or erm... Windows 8 (or go build your own), what kind of choice is that? OEMs will fall in line with Microsoft, because their bottom line depends on it. Microsoft generates their market afterall. OEM licensing of Windows means that if users need to upgrade their Windows - due to lack of support from Microsoft - they need to buy a new computer (even buying a copy of Windows separately is out of the question as newer Windows is always designed to require newer hardware). It's a rort, with both Microsoft and OEMs teaming up to devise ways to cheat more and more money out of consumers. There's even less choice with Apple (due to limited hardware offings), but that's a whole different story.

@heyu: dude, you sound like a dumb **** teenager. have you even used linux? i mean, really? for anything other than trying to install call of duty (for windows)? seriously mate, get a friggin clue.
@hornerea
You can call an OEM when your machine gets infected?
@kirovs@...
The problem is that the average user, not we techie geeks that read this newsletter, can't tell a root-kit infection from a disk crash.
So, yes, a lot of people that get infections like this will call tech support to find out what has happened to thier computer that "suddenly started giving me these wierd errors!".
Then the tech support person has to dig out the real symptoms from a person that calls thier computer a "hard drive" (yes, I have a client that does just that!), and determine that it is in fact a root-kit infection that isn't covered rather than a hardware failure that is under warrenty.
@hornerea Then why IS Microsoft telling OEMs what options to offer already - i.e. including secure boot in the first place? This argument doesn't follow from the facts.
@jgm@...

The functionality for secure boot will already exist in the firmware/hardware, Microsoft is saying that they want to make use of it for Windows 8 to make it more secure.

So how does this not follow the facts?
@jgm@...

SecureBoot is *already* there in UEFI. That's how Apple locks their hardware from booting any other OS without the use of their proprietary VM software. Of course, the existence of "Hackintoshes" shows that it's *completely* possible to disable the SecureBoot...& shows that the Linuxite fears are groundless.
SecureBoot is *already* there in UEFI. That's how Apple locks their hardware from booting any other OS without the use of their proprietary VM software. Of course, the existence of "Hackintoshes" shows that it's *completely* possible to disable the SecureBoot...& shows that the Linuxite fears are groundless.

But the point is you shouldn't have to hack a tickbox that should already be there in the UEFI but with no guarantees that it will.

I'm not interested in doing a workaround just to cater to some predatory monopoly.
@ScorpioBlue

Then we should be hearing you yell as loudly about Apple's monopoly as you do about Microsoft -- moreso, in fact, since Apple *directly* controls the manufacture of the hardware that implements the UEFI preventing non-Apple OSs from being loaded.
Then we should be hearing you yell as loudly about Apple's monopoly as you do about Microsoft -- moreso, in fact, since Apple *directly* controls the manufacture of the hardware that implements the UEFI preventing non-Apple OSs from being loaded.

It's called marketshare. It makes all the difference in the world.

Now when Apple reaches that 90% of the desktop market, I'll be saying the same thing about them as well.

Btw, Apple has been bundling hardware with their software since 1977. Why hasn't the government moved against them yet? After all they've had 35 years to do so.

Don't you think that's long enough to catch them in the act?

Hmm? wink
0 Votes
+ -
choise
somereader 20th Oct
@hornerea
OEM's have no choice in those matters. If they would really be free to do what they wanted, we would have seen more different offers. At least some would have competed with offers like selling with Windows as an option, re??mboursing Windows and Windows software...
Just the very big ones have the power to take the risk to offer some Linux systems. And the small shops where you put together your PC part by part. But you never find the main offerings with an opt out of Windows, of Windows programs and of Support for those.
0 Votes
+ -
A lot of noise over this.
ye Updated - 19th Oct
In the end most people will leave Windows 8 on their systems making this a non-issue for the vast majority of PC users.

For those who want to install an alternative operating system there will be options. Maybe not every PC but there will be options. PC vendors may use it to differentiate their product line. Much like your example of hardware virtualization.

A larger concern of mine is how this could be used to lock users out of installing a newer operating system on an older system. Say Microsoft releases Windows 9 using a different signature. Older systems would not be able to boot this system. Not suggesting Microsoft would do this but it appears they could do this. I also see this as a means to reduce piracy (a good thing IMO).

And finally: Who installing Linux is going to call the OEM tech support? Does this really happen?
@ye

"And finally: Who installing Linux is going to call the OEM tech support? Does this really happen?"

Of course not. We know we're on our own and fine with it. OEM's should should love us for this.
For those who want to install an alternative operating system there will be options. Maybe not every PC but there will be options. PC vendors may use it to differentiate their product line. Much like your example of hardware virtualization.

And how are they going to accomplish this? How will the customer know? Do you really think they'll market machines as "dual-boot ready"?

Puh-leasee...
@ScorpioBlue And how are they going to accomplish this? How will the customer know? Do you really think they'll market machines as "dual-boot ready"?

Uh, maybe if someone wants to build a machine to run something other than Windows 8, they might be able to figure out how to use this thing called "The Internet" to lookup which motherboards/BIOSes offer the option to disable this feature?

In all the years I've been building computers, I never had much trouble figuring out which motherboards offer the features I want when I build a machine. And I'm just a dumb Windows user. I'm sure you brilliant Linux Dorks are all much smarter than me, and I'm sure you could learn to use Google, or *gasp* Bing to do a little research before you buy?

Puh-lease....

Rick
Uh, maybe if someone wants to build a machine to run something other than Windows 8, they might be able to figure out how to use this thing called "The Internet" to lookup which motherboards/BIOSes offer the option to disable this feature?

You shouldn't have to that. That should be said up front when you buy the machine from the OEM. Their sales help leaves a lot to be desired so they won't know.

That's why the FSF want truth in advertizing. Not everything should be left up to the buyer.

In all the years I've been building computers, I never had much trouble figuring out which motherboards offer the features I want when I build a machine. And I'm just a dumb Windows user. I'm sure you brilliant Linux Dorks are all much smarter than me, and I'm sure you could learn to use Google, or *gasp* Bing to do a little research before you buy?

Not everybody out there is a machine building hobbyboy like you are. Not everybody's going to take the time to research this thing just to kiss some monopoly's ass.

The world doesn't surround YOU and your experiences ya know.

Puh-leease is right...
@ScorpioBlue So what you're telling me is that most Linux users will find it too difficult to go to a vendor's web site to look up the features and capabilities of the products the vendor sells, yet they have no problem at all with installing a new OS on a computer?

Really? Are you serious? Do you even read what you write? You're seriously telling me that there are a substantial number of people who want to buy computers that comes with Windows 8, then install Linux on the computer in place of (or along side of) Windows 8, but these people can't be bothered to do a tiny little bit of research to find out if the computer they are about to buy will be able to do what they want it to do?

Look, I know you hate Microsoft, and I know you are bound and determined to always make absurd claims about how evil Microsoft is, but come on... listen to what you are saying and think about what you are telling the world. Really. You are saying that people can do the research required to even know that Linux exists, let alone make a decision about which flavor of Linux to use. They can figure out how to download their prefered flavor of Linux. They can figure out how to install it on a computer. They can figure out how to use Linux. But they either can't be bothered, or can't figure out how to look up any information about the computer they are about to buy in order to determine if the computer will suit their needs? That's really the story you're going with?

Well, ok then. I guess Linux Dorks are even dumber than I had previously suspected.

Rick
@ScorpioBlue So what you're telling me is that most Linux users will find it too difficult to go to a vendor's web site to look up the features and capabilities of the products the vendor sells, yet they have no problem at all with installing a new OS on a computer?

No, I'm saying most end users aren't going to go to the trouble of looking up motherboard part numbers and codes just because hobbyboys like you do so.

You really need to stop thinking like a tekkie and put yourself in the typical end user's place. I know it's tough concept, but try.

Really? Are you serious? Do you even read what you write? You're seriously telling me that there are a substantial number of people who want to buy computers that comes with Windows 8, then install Linux on the computer in place of (or along side of) Windows 8, but these people can't be bothered to do a tiny little bit of research to find out if the computer they are about to buy will be able to do what they want it to do?

I think at a later date, some people will get adventurous and want to try it. I've read many of these kinds of stories both at the Vector Linux and the Linux Mint forums. Stories about how they tried out the first distros they've downloaded and the machines they've put them on. They didn't just go out and buy a machine specifically for that purpose. And I can tell you hands down that each and most every one of them had some version of Windows on these older machine at one time. My first disto was on an old Sony PCG-F290 that I bought in 1999 but didn't install Linux on it until 2006.

Look, I know you hate Microsoft, and I know you are bound and determined to always make absurd claims about how evil Microsoft is, but come on...

C'mon is right. And I will continue to do that so stop being their unquestioning slave. Or is your mind that far gone...

listen to what you are saying and think about what you are telling the world.

I'm am listening. Maybe you should start listening to the other side for once. Have you checked out the FSF's petition? Have you gone to their petition page and read their concerns?

Based on your patronizing answers, I doubt you have.

Really. You are saying that people can do the research required to even know that Linux exists, let alone make a decision about which flavor of Linux to use. They can figure out how to download their prefered flavor of Linux. They can figure out how to install it on a computer. They can figure out how to use Linux. But they either can't be bothered, or can't figure out how to look up any information about the computer they are about to buy in order to determine if the computer will suit their needs? That's really the story you're going with?

Because their wants can change at a later date like I mentioned up above. I didn't look up motherboards or BIOS versions before I wanted to try Linux on my used machine. That didn't figure into the equation at the time I bought it. I just assumed that it would work and so far it has. Only now with UEFI lock out, that's going to complicate things quite a bit.

Well, ok then. I guess Linux Dorks are even dumber than I had previously suspected.

I know what I said above is a tough concept for you to understand, but try to work some of those teeny tiny brain cells of yours for once and see the other side of the picture, ok? Really. Seriously.

And remember, I can be just as patronizing about it as you can.
@ScorpioBlue You really need to stop thinking like a tekkie and put yourself in the typical end user's place. I know it's tough concept, but try.


OK, the typical end user has no clue what Linux even is. The typical end user is going to either buy a Windows computer, or a Mac, and they will use whatever OS comes with their computer until they decide they need a new computer. The typical end user will NEVER know about any of what we are discussing here. The typical end user will never care whether or not the computer he bought can run a different OS other than the one that came with it.

What was your point again?

I think at a later date, some people will get adventurous and want to try it.

That could be a possibility. And if they made a mistake and bought a computer that can't run Linux, they will be disappointed.

C'mon is right. And I will continue to do that so stop being their unquestioning slave. Or is your mind that far gone...


Unquestioning slave? How does being able to think for myself make me Microsoft's unquestioning slave?

Again, I get that you absolutely hate Microsoft. I get that you think using Linux somehow makes you "cooler" than me. I get that you think anyone who doesn't hate Microsoft is somehow Microsoft's "unquestioning slave." I get all of it.

I know what I said above is a tough concept for you to understand, but try to work some of those teeny tiny brain cells of yours for once and see the other side of the picture, ok? Really. Seriously.


Really? Seriously? Your side of the picture seems to be a blind hatred for particular software maker. I've seen enough of your posts in these forums to know what your side of the picture is.

Rick
OK, the typical end user has no clue what Linux even is.

Well now you're finally catching on. I one time I didn't know what it was either. And then Vista came along and I did crash course on Linux. But that's another story.

The typical end user is going to either buy a Windows computer, or a Mac, and they will use whatever OS comes with their computer until they decide they need a new computer.

Thanks to Microsoft's bundling of the OS with 99% of the PCs sold out there. And in spite of Macs using an Intel chip nowadays, I still differentiate between a Mac and a PC.

The typical end user will NEVER know about any of what we are discussing here. The typical end user will never care whether or not the computer he bought can run a different OS other than the one that came with it.

At one time a few years back, I was like that too. But some people change and get out of that nonsense. They start to question things. Beyond the status quo.

Unquestioning slave? How does being able to think for myself make me Microsoft's unquestioning slave?

Who says you can think for yourself? Have you even bothered to look at the other side of this debate? Or do you just dismiss it all as "blind hatred" and they don't know what they're talking about? I know what Microsoft is saying publically about this, and I suspect the worst as to what they're privately saying about it. To their OEM slaves. They've had a track record of this and since money is paramount to them, I have no reason to believe they've changed at all. It's too imbedded into their corporate mentality to do so. Not without legal threats.

Again, I get that you absolutely hate Microsoft. I get that you think using Linux somehow makes you "cooler" than me. I get that you think anyone who doesn't hate Microsoft is somehow Microsoft's "unquestioning slave." I get all of it.

This isn't about "cool" or "hip". I could care less whether you use Linux or not. This is about whether I can buy a machine in the future that will allow dual booting as painlessly as possible without having to do a whole bunch more stupid, detailed research ahead of time. God knows I do enough of that ahead of time without getting into specific motherboards, DVD drives or LCD part numbers. In other words the option for dual booting should be standard and we have no guarantees of this. Just more workarounds because of what some stupid, benevolent monopoly does.

Really? Seriously? Your side of the picture seems to be a blind hatred for particular software maker.

And you'll continue to see more dislike for them from me. They have too much power and too much control over our internet access. Even more so than the ISPs out there.

I've seen enough of your posts in these forums to know what your side of the picture is.

Good. Then we're done.

For now. wink
@ScorpioBlue Who says you can think for yourself?

Who says I can't? You? What gives you the authority to pass judgement on other people, just because they don't use the same OS that you use?

Have you even bothered to look at the other side of this debate?

Yes, I clearly see both sides of this debate. This debate is about whether or not Microsoft can specify certain requirements for a computer to be "Windows 8 Certified." Most people here seem to think this a reasonable requirement, and most people think it is truly up to the computer hardware vendors to decide if they are going to offer the option to disable this feature, or not. Clearly, there is no evidence that Microsoft is doing anything to prevent the hardware vendors from offering the option to disable this feature. On the other hand, you, and a few other Microsoft Haters are trying to make the claim that Microsoft is somehow doing this specifically to prevent people from being able to install Linux, with the only basis for your claim being that you hate Microsoft.

This is about whether I can buy a machine in the future that will allow dual booting as painlessly as possible without having to do a whole bunch more stupid, detailed research ahead of time.

Ah... I get it now! You want the 99% of the computer users in the world to be inconvenienced, just so that you and a handful of other Linux users won't have to bother with determining if a particular computer is capable of running Linux, or not. It makes perfect sense now! The world revolves around you, after all. Why should you suffer some minor inconvenience just so the majority of computer users can have a safer computing experience?

Yeah, it all makes sense to me now.

Good. Then we're done.

For now.

Yeah, for now.

Rick
@ye I'm with you on this one. People building Linux systems seldom buy a PC with an installed OS, so not a big issue for them.
However, the Windows user who wants to upgrade their Win8 to Win9 is going to be the one bitten by this.
Just like Win8 License numbers wont work on Win9, neither will the UFEI certs.
@anothercanuck

Sorry, not true.

People who want to dual boot want to have BOTH Windows and Linux on the same machine. People who don't want windows frequently buy a Windows machine, and then wipe the hard drive.

The reason for that is that manufacturers pay Microsoft for Windows, but then they get paid to add in all the ransom ware applications you find on new PCs. They end up getting paid around $30 more than Windows costs. That saving gets passed on to the consumer in a tight market. So, buying a Windows computer and just formatting the hard drive is cheaper than buying a system with no OS on it.

Building from scratch costs close to twice as much as buying a ready built machine, just as buying a car one piece at a time is much more expensive than just buying a new one.

If you had ever built your own computer, you would already know this.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Microsoft isn't the enemy when it comes to blocking Linux on Windows 8 PCs
LoverockDavidson_-24231404894599612871915491754222 19th Oct
If someone is blocking linux then they are not the enemy, they are your friend. With people ditching linux at an incredible rate I see no reason to cater that OS. If Microsoft wants to make Windows more secure and using UEFI to do it than so be it. Its as simple as that and the linux users are going to have to suck it up and accept it instead of crying about it.
@LoverockDavidson_

as usual, no stats to back any of this up. once again, LRD shows himself as the ass-hat poster child...
@piperdown

When I was reading these comments on Oct 19 at 2:50 PM EDT, there was no post by "@LoverockDavidson". I guess it got eaten by the moderators. Tsk, tsk.
0 Votes
+ -
Statistics
davidr69 19th Oct
@LoverockDavidson_ Who are these people ditching Linux? Where are the statistics?

As for Microsoft making the OS more secure, what's stopping them? Why is OpenBSD so impenetrable on the same hardware as Windows? Blame the hardware, not the OS.

As for Linux, my entire company (180,000+ desktops) switched from physical Windows to virtual via VDI. Guess what the host OS is? Linux (via VMWare).

Please explain why you have this hatred for Linux? In a country that promotes choice, you don't fit in.
@davidr69

WoW there will be 3 or 4 people picketing one OEM somewhere - maintain that rage!

As for Linux, you just told us your company runs Windows - virtual or not and just because the IT fanbois decided to use Linux as the host of the VM - it was probably the ony way they could convince anyone to use Linux wink
@LoverockDavidson_

Why doesn't Microsoft just code a decent OS? Linux doesn't need UEFI in order to be secure.
@paulfx1 Which is like saying "why lock the windows, my door already has a deadbolt".
Ed Bott is... just that. What else do you expect?
0 Votes
+ -
If you're going to build a linux system then you're going to check that the board you buy supports disabling secure boot. The cheapest boards may not support this but that's hardly a major issue.
This may become an issue 3 years down the line when secure boot systems become obsolete enough to get re-used as linux boxes, but right now the added security is a boon that will help the average user.
@keebaud@... 3 out of 4 of my systems are recycled. I guess I'll just jump into my time machine and tell the original purchaser not to buy dumb hardware! Wait, that won't work ...
An extra hard drive with Linux, UNIX, or I'm Gonna Hack You from Usbeckustanley installed, can be booted in the same box that contains your Window's 8. A switch added to your SATA power source will give you the ability to manually toggle between OS's at boot time; or you can choose drives in your bios. It's on the web, brought to you by Linux."Can't we all get along?"
@pervagor1@...
Doesn't work. It's not that it won't allow you to install Linux on the hard drive, it just won't boot into it at all. Secure Boot only allows an OS with it's signatures already added to its list to be booted. This is the problem.
@tmsbrdrs
OEMs ...at least HP...passed out prep disks for qualified upgrades to Vista, which changed the bios to SLIC-2. I'd imagine a signature hack to secure boot would be available before the final RC of 8 rolled out. And the developer version of 8 is a pain. Just say'n'
0 Votes
+ -
The option can produce more money
databaseben 19th Oct
The option to disable it would make a wise financial move.

Subsequently, if a moron screws up the computer, there is money to be made.
0 Votes
+ -
Duh.
crazydanr@... 19th Oct
I think you may be the only individual who understands the who, what, and why of this overblown fiasco. The market will demand that at least one vendor provides the ability to turn off secure boot on some of it's machines.

If it doesn't, you are free to start your own PC integration company that assembles secure-boot free PCs that run linux and sell them. You can save a bit of money because you don't have to pay a MS license. There's nothing stopping you.
@crazydanr@... "You are free to start your own...."

That's your solution? Doesn't that put you in the fanboy outlook Adrian takes apart in the very post you're agreeing with?
0 Votes
+ -
Numbskulls
johnfenjackson@... 19th Oct
"in order to see the real issue, you have to look beyond party lines"
Agreed: EB and SJVN are like bickering politicians who are unwilling or unable to present the whole picture and forget that it is the general public they are supposed to be helping.

"Because the real enemy is the OEM's..."
Half right ... it's M$ AND the OEM's ... that well known cartel aimed at ...

"Microsoft making ???secure boot??? mandatory isn???t part of some grand plan at world domination."
My latest nomination for 'worst statement of the year on ZDNET'. Anyone who does not see that global corporations battle for world control is not worthy of a blog spot on ZDNET (the editor must be asleep today too).

We don't need a bunch of biased 'experts' arguing like politicians: we need an enlightened Government who will stamp out anti-competitive practices and quality media outlets who will expose them to the general public.

In the case of Apple; OSX is artificially tied to Apple hardware (when Windows goes UEFI it should be trivial to install OSX on Intel PC's).
When M$ goes UEFI we want the Windows ecosystem to allow users a choice of OS install ... that means the ecosystem has to work in harmony to offer a choice (as it did for browsers ... same thing for security suites). The current situation is far too tilted in favour of the manufacturers.

Trusting M$ isn't trying for global control; trusting the purveyors of crapware to do the right thing ... where does ZDNET get these numbskull ideas from?
@johnfenjackson@... You might have had a valid point and perspective, unfortunately your trollish use of "m$" killed it.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix