So this group wants 90% of the computing world to be less secure so that 1% of the computing world doesn't have to spend 30 seconds disabling a setting before installing their OS?
How selfish.
How utterly selfish.
They should be petitioning the OEMs to ensure that secure boot can be turned off.
That should be their focus.
Instead, they want a security feature to be totally unavailable.
How ridiculous.
How childish.
Linux group mulls anti-Microsoft campaign
Summary
Plans to enable a secure boot on Windows 8 machines have drawn the ire of Linux Australia's membership and has them considering action.
Topics
Plans to enable a secure boot on Windows 8 machines have drawn the ire of Linux Australia's membership after Microsoft revealed plans recently that would require all alternative operating systems (including earlier versions of Windows) to carry Microsoft security keys to be compatible with the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) and its secure-booting procedures.
This would make it impossible to install alternative operating systems like Linux, or even older versions of Windows, if the OEM doesn't bundle the secure keys with new OS releases and the hardware vendor doesn't enable the secure-boot feature to be switched off.
Members of Linux Australia are looking to petition the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), claiming that Microsoft's behavior is anti-competitive. They are circulating a form letter addressed to the ACCC in an attempt to press the regulator into action, as well as a step-by-step guide on how to create a new complaint for investigation. Linux Australia president John Ferlito told ZDNet Australia today that the council will be meeting on Thursday night to determine whether it will take up a campaign against Microsoft's secure boot practices.
For more on this story, read Linux users threaten Microsoft with ACCC on ZDNet Australia.
Just In
@toddybottom
As long as the OEMs allow me to spend 30 seconds to disable a setting, I've got no problem with this setup. The issue is that without a campaign like this, I fear that OEMs will not see this as an issue and will not sell machines which allow secure boot to be disabled. So perhaps it is wrong to make this an anti-Microsoft campaign, but this is an issue for machines bundled with MS Windows, so it's tough to have a campaign without MS getting caught in the crosshairs.
As long as the OEMs allow me to spend 30 seconds to disable a setting, I've got no problem with this setup. The issue is that without a campaign like this, I fear that OEMs will not see this as an issue and will not sell machines which allow secure boot to be disabled. So perhaps it is wrong to make this an anti-Microsoft campaign, but this is an issue for machines bundled with MS Windows, so it's tough to have a campaign without MS getting caught in the crosshairs.
@Michael Kelly
If not then it is very easy not to catch MS in the crosshairs.
The ironic thing is that while Linux users are complaining about Microsoft taking away their choice, they are responding by taking away our choice to use a more secure version of Windows. It is my choice to use secure Windows, why do you want to take that away from me? Why is your choice more important than my choice?
"So perhaps it is wrong to make this an anti-Microsoft campaign"
Not perhaps wrong, it is wrong. Period.
"As long as the OEMs allow me to spend 30 seconds to disable a setting, I've got no problem with this setup."
Agreed. You need to petition OEMs to include this and leave Microsoft, and my choice to have a more secure version of Windows, out of it.
If not then it is very easy not to catch MS in the crosshairs.
The ironic thing is that while Linux users are complaining about Microsoft taking away their choice, they are responding by taking away our choice to use a more secure version of Windows. It is my choice to use secure Windows, why do you want to take that away from me? Why is your choice more important than my choice?
"So perhaps it is wrong to make this an anti-Microsoft campaign"
Not perhaps wrong, it is wrong. Period.
"As long as the OEMs allow me to spend 30 seconds to disable a setting, I've got no problem with this setup."
Agreed. You need to petition OEMs to include this and leave Microsoft, and my choice to have a more secure version of Windows, out of it.
@toddybottom: "they are responding by taking away our choice to use a more secure version of Windows."
Not at all. Nobody says "remove UEFI Secure boot", they're saying "give me a choice to disable it".
Then you can secure your Windows AND I can install my Linux.
If Microsoft's requirements on OEMs is what leads to Linux not being possible to install, then MS should share the pain.
Not at all. Nobody says "remove UEFI Secure boot", they're saying "give me a choice to disable it".
Then you can secure your Windows AND I can install my Linux.
If Microsoft's requirements on OEMs is what leads to Linux not being possible to install, then MS should share the pain.
@toddybottom
They have to prevent these security measures. How else could they run around screaming that Windows is insecure?
They have to prevent these security measures. How else could they run around screaming that Windows is insecure?
@Badgered lol
It only prevents bootsector rootkits anyway. Nothing more.
It only prevents bootsector rootkits anyway. Nothing more.
@toddybottom
You thought the In-security of PC is caused by BIOS not implementing secure boot and you thought secure boot can actually secure your Windows?
This is utterly ignorant, selfish and childish.
BIOS won't help protect your system. After boot, full hardware control will be handled to system. BIOS/UEFI only determines which hardware to mount, what system to boot. When booting, kernel will first be executed, not the virus. After booting, kernel may run the virus the same as it run other applications. Virus will infect independently whether or not your kernel is signed.
The secure boot (if force enabled) restrict users from switching to another OS (no matter from Win to Linux or from Win8 to Win9). This sure enforce security, in a non-sense way: If you want to live in a safe house, then go into the jail. While this may prevent sb. breaking into your house, generic virus can still infect you as usual.
----------------------------------------------
Someone pointed out that there are bootloader Viruses. Yes, there are even BIOS viruses that flash your BIOS and start to do bad thing on "Power on".
A real safe system like Linux will be able to detect and stop any program from changing these sensitive parts of an OS (unless the root user is foolish enough). Then do we need secure boot if Windows can be this secure? NO!
Even if Windows kernel is signed, future virus may still surpass this check by stealing the key from Windows---i.e. a signed virus infected bootloader.
You thought the In-security of PC is caused by BIOS not implementing secure boot and you thought secure boot can actually secure your Windows?
This is utterly ignorant, selfish and childish.
BIOS won't help protect your system. After boot, full hardware control will be handled to system. BIOS/UEFI only determines which hardware to mount, what system to boot. When booting, kernel will first be executed, not the virus. After booting, kernel may run the virus the same as it run other applications. Virus will infect independently whether or not your kernel is signed.
The secure boot (if force enabled) restrict users from switching to another OS (no matter from Win to Linux or from Win8 to Win9). This sure enforce security, in a non-sense way: If you want to live in a safe house, then go into the jail. While this may prevent sb. breaking into your house, generic virus can still infect you as usual.
----------------------------------------------
Someone pointed out that there are bootloader Viruses. Yes, there are even BIOS viruses that flash your BIOS and start to do bad thing on "Power on".
A real safe system like Linux will be able to detect and stop any program from changing these sensitive parts of an OS (unless the root user is foolish enough). Then do we need secure boot if Windows can be this secure? NO!
Even if Windows kernel is signed, future virus may still surpass this check by stealing the key from Windows---i.e. a signed virus infected bootloader.
@UStupidKid
For most viruses, that's true, but there are certain viruses that install on the boot sector of the hard drive and load "before" the OS loads. This is what the Secure Boot is meant to stop.
Essentially, the point is to make sure the "right" kernel is loaded first, so that it can, in turn, do its thing to keep the rest of the viruses from loading.
For most viruses, that's true, but there are certain viruses that install on the boot sector of the hard drive and load "before" the OS loads. This is what the Secure Boot is meant to stop.
Essentially, the point is to make sure the "right" kernel is loaded first, so that it can, in turn, do its thing to keep the rest of the viruses from loading.
@UStupidKid Virus/malware can mount and patch OS's kernel binary even before the system boots. It can be done by using insecured bootloader.
That's exactly how Windows 7 activation loader (GNU GRUB based loader) being done, Right now.
That's exactly how Windows 7 activation loader (GNU GRUB based loader) being done, Right now.
@UStupidKid You got it! Microsoft's secure boot is total crap! Secure boot just ensures that nothing else than Windows 8 boots on that machine but won't prevent your machine from being "molested" by malware and viruses. The people who believe that Microsoft's secure boot makes their machine any safer are ignorant. With secure boot Microsoft plans to be a greater monopoly as it is now. Does Microsoft fear it will be struck down by Linux like Goliath by David? XD
@Samic
"That's exactly how Windows 7 activation loader (GNU GRUB based loader) being done, Right now."
Really? So MS has an open source boot loader? Let's see the source code then.
"That's exactly how Windows 7 activation loader (GNU GRUB based loader) being done, Right now."
Really? So MS has an open source boot loader? Let's see the source code then.
@toddybottom
There is no such thing as a secure windows.
There is no such thing as a secure windows.
@toddybottom
90% and slowly shrinking.
MS has to remember that they are not the only game in town and should make the feature optional or the default with an off switch.
But we all know MS doesn't know how to play fair or give users a choice.
90% and slowly shrinking.
MS has to remember that they are not the only game in town and should make the feature optional or the default with an off switch.
But we all know MS doesn't know how to play fair or give users a choice.
@toddybottom LULZ
No, they do not want others to be more insecure. In fact, projects like OpenBSD in particular wants others to be more secure.
You're about 10000x more likely to have remotely exploitable bugs in your system that can lead to your email password and banking info getting stolen if you run Windows instead of OpenBSD.
UEFI Secure boot only protects against bootsector rootkits, a small portion of all malware.
AFAIK they're NOT asking the secure boot feature to be removed, just that the users can choose what to install.
No, they do not want others to be more insecure. In fact, projects like OpenBSD in particular wants others to be more secure.
You're about 10000x more likely to have remotely exploitable bugs in your system that can lead to your email password and banking info getting stolen if you run Windows instead of OpenBSD.
UEFI Secure boot only protects against bootsector rootkits, a small portion of all malware.
AFAIK they're NOT asking the secure boot feature to be removed, just that the users can choose what to install.
@toddybottom
I understand MS. Only 90%. Until 1987 all candidates for the local soviets usually received about 99 percent of the vote. That 1% would really help.
But don't underestimate the risk for MS. Just suppose that 1% would increase to a few %, not on a scale professionals use Linux, but just a few %. MS would already lose some 60-70% of their pro Windows arguments. (no full compatibility, not exact the same functionality, not used to the interface, friends have not enough knowledge, not enough commercial helpdesk support, some hardware makers still slow with supporting driver development, with some electronic products come with incompatible soft). So we must understand MS doing this.
With enough attention, I suppose a solution will appear, the new system will be open. MS has other ways to make it consumers difficult to try, select an alternative.
I am sure the people defending the quality's of Windows would also like us to have more chose. It must be difficult to defend something that is used not because people really selected it. They would like to show a high percentage, but after people tested and selected their preferred OS.
I understand MS. Only 90%. Until 1987 all candidates for the local soviets usually received about 99 percent of the vote. That 1% would really help.
But don't underestimate the risk for MS. Just suppose that 1% would increase to a few %, not on a scale professionals use Linux, but just a few %. MS would already lose some 60-70% of their pro Windows arguments. (no full compatibility, not exact the same functionality, not used to the interface, friends have not enough knowledge, not enough commercial helpdesk support, some hardware makers still slow with supporting driver development, with some electronic products come with incompatible soft). So we must understand MS doing this.
With enough attention, I suppose a solution will appear, the new system will be open. MS has other ways to make it consumers difficult to try, select an alternative.
I am sure the people defending the quality's of Windows would also like us to have more chose. It must be difficult to defend something that is used not because people really selected it. They would like to show a high percentage, but after people tested and selected their preferred OS.
@toddybottom You do realize MS is doing this to prevent you, and most other Windows users, from doing lo-cost Windows upgrades, right?
The same thing that keeps Linux off these systems will also keep cheap online versions of Windows 9 off these computers.
The rootkit security is just a side benefit that MS marketing can sell to the un-informed.
The same thing that keeps Linux off these systems will also keep cheap online versions of Windows 9 off these computers.
The rootkit security is just a side benefit that MS marketing can sell to the un-informed.
What happens if Microsoft's customers actually want secure boot, which we do?
This however, proves how unintelligent these Linux fans are, because Microsoft has clearly stated that even though UEFI is a requirement for Windows 8, secure boot can be disabled.
Go ahead Linux losers, because you won't get too far with this as it makes absolutely no sense.
This however, proves how unintelligent these Linux fans are, because Microsoft has clearly stated that even though UEFI is a requirement for Windows 8, secure boot can be disabled.
Go ahead Linux losers, because you won't get too far with this as it makes absolutely no sense.
@General C#
Secure Boot is a requirement for Windows 8 logo certification; not for booting Windows 8. Windows 8 will boot fine (but without integrity guarantee) on a PC without secure boot or on a PC where secure boot has been disabled.
Secure Boot is a requirement for Windows 8 logo certification; not for booting Windows 8. Windows 8 will boot fine (but without integrity guarantee) on a PC without secure boot or on a PC where secure boot has been disabled.
@honeymonster
A couple of things that even I found unsettling is that we "don't know" what Microsoft is going to do beyond revoking logo certification for computers without Secure Boot enabled.
Will we see Windows 8 squak at you a la UAC anytime you boot to the desktop if your computer doesn't have secure boot enabled? I wouldn't be surprised if it did.
If (and there's a BIG if here) Linux was ever to become mainstream enough that "mere mortals" would want to dual-boot their machines, wouldn't this alone cause a bit of confusion and result in only one outcome?
A couple of things that even I found unsettling is that we "don't know" what Microsoft is going to do beyond revoking logo certification for computers without Secure Boot enabled.
Will we see Windows 8 squak at you a la UAC anytime you boot to the desktop if your computer doesn't have secure boot enabled? I wouldn't be surprised if it did.
If (and there's a BIG if here) Linux was ever to become mainstream enough that "mere mortals" would want to dual-boot their machines, wouldn't this alone cause a bit of confusion and result in only one outcome?
@daftkey - Windows 8 Logo'ing cannot be revoked for any particular system that's already logo'd.
If you purchase a Windows 8 logo'd system, and you disable secure boot, the logo remains valid on that particular system because it SHIPPED to the end user with secure boot enabled.
There's nothing in the Windows 8 logo requirements (that I can find) that say secure boot must *remain* enabled once the system is purchased by an end user.
If you purchase a Windows 8 logo'd system, and you disable secure boot, the logo remains valid on that particular system because it SHIPPED to the end user with secure boot enabled.
There's nothing in the Windows 8 logo requirements (that I can find) that say secure boot must *remain* enabled once the system is purchased by an end user.
@honeymonster
And what OEM will sell a computer that doesn't have a Windows 8 logo? Hint: None.
Just as most now "recommend Windows 7 for the best experience". (Which is a load of BS.)
And what OEM will sell a computer that doesn't have a Windows 8 logo? Hint: None.
Just as most now "recommend Windows 7 for the best experience". (Which is a load of BS.)
I suppose you have actually read what Microsoft has stated and thus you know that this issue is about ARM systems with NO option for disabling UEFI - secure boot can be disabled on x86 systems only, as we all know.
Why are you lying? Your BS makes no sense, unless you get paid for this - which I doubt, so it seems that you are just plain dumb?
Why are you lying? Your BS makes no sense, unless you get paid for this - which I doubt, so it seems that you are just plain dumb?
Let them go ahead. From what i understand is that a company or a person can't be held accountable for something they haven't done yet. So even if that court finds that act ati-competitive Microsoft cannot be held accountable. So its good news that those Linux advocates are jumping the gun.
This also goes along with what I've thought all along, that most of these windows viruses are actually from Linux perpetrators, why would they want to lessen the potency of such a brazen security measure. If OEMs want other OS installation on their systems they will ship with an option to turn the feature off. By not shipping with such an option turned on lessens the impact of the feature in the first place.
Sigh, i hope the courts shot down the petition hard.
This also goes along with what I've thought all along, that most of these windows viruses are actually from Linux perpetrators, why would they want to lessen the potency of such a brazen security measure. If OEMs want other OS installation on their systems they will ship with an option to turn the feature off. By not shipping with such an option turned on lessens the impact of the feature in the first place.
Sigh, i hope the courts shot down the petition hard.
@blazing_smiley_face Apparently you have no clue. This is not about Secure Boot working for windows, it's about Microsoft forcing computer companies to build machines that will take your choices away for the hardware you are going to buy.
Without the certificates required for changing your system, if you windows 8 system needs a new card, say a better video card, you can't upgrade it. You can't add a second bigger hard drive and have it work. You can't add a new whatever, you are stuck with what you bought. And if a new version of windows comes out, say Windows 9, you can't upgrade. You would have to buy yet another computer.
And if you ever figure out how duped you are by Microsoft and decide to use an alternative you won't be able to.
it's not about security, it's about controlling you.
If you want to continue to ignore it go ahead and be a sheeple.
Without the certificates required for changing your system, if you windows 8 system needs a new card, say a better video card, you can't upgrade it. You can't add a second bigger hard drive and have it work. You can't add a new whatever, you are stuck with what you bought. And if a new version of windows comes out, say Windows 9, you can't upgrade. You would have to buy yet another computer.
And if you ever figure out how duped you are by Microsoft and decide to use an alternative you won't be able to.
it's not about security, it's about controlling you.
If you want to continue to ignore it go ahead and be a sheeple.
@sysop-dr - Reading comprehension is half the battle:
Microsoft is not forcing computer companies to build machines that will take away your choice for the hardware you're going to buy. Microsoft is requiring computer companies to enable secure boot by default *IF* they want their computers to be logo'd as Windows 8 compliant.
What this means in real English is that computer companies can sell computers with secure boot disable that are Windows 8 compatible, but not Windows 8 Logo'd.
As I said, reading comprehension is half the battle and it appears, sadly, that you're going to lose the whole battle because you can't grok this simple concept.
Microsoft is not forcing computer companies to build machines that will take away your choice for the hardware you're going to buy. Microsoft is requiring computer companies to enable secure boot by default *IF* they want their computers to be logo'd as Windows 8 compliant.
What this means in real English is that computer companies can sell computers with secure boot disable that are Windows 8 compatible, but not Windows 8 Logo'd.
As I said, reading comprehension is half the battle and it appears, sadly, that you're going to lose the whole battle because you can't grok this simple concept.
Though the writer mentions that hardware also should allow to disable the feature, the article is written like its something against Microsoft.
@riderchap
Members of Linux Australia are looking to petition the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) claiming that Microsoft's behavior is anti-claiming that Microsoft's behavior is anti-competitive
Members of Linux Australia are looking to petition the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) claiming that Microsoft's behavior is anti-claiming that Microsoft's behavior is anti-competitive
@William Farrell
The key point is that it's Linux Australia. As an Australain, I think we can ignore both of them, they'll get over it.
Why not publish their membership numbers to see if they can get to double figures.
The key point is that it's Linux Australia. As an Australain, I think we can ignore both of them, they'll get over it.
Why not publish their membership numbers to see if they can get to double figures.
The key line here is:
...hardware vendor doesn't enable the secure-boot feature to be switched off.
Sounds like they are going after the wrong company.
IMO I think that this is a good step in providing an extra layer of security and only a very small percentage of people will be affected and since the majority need extra security where it can be offered it should be done. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The few that would like an older version of Windows or another OS can simply disable secure boot or hope that secure keys can be obtained for the OS of their choice.
...hardware vendor doesn't enable the secure-boot feature to be switched off.
Sounds like they are going after the wrong company.
IMO I think that this is a good step in providing an extra layer of security and only a very small percentage of people will be affected and since the majority need extra security where it can be offered it should be done. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The few that would like an older version of Windows or another OS can simply disable secure boot or hope that secure keys can be obtained for the OS of their choice.
@toddybottom
Its not going to be a matter of matter of making a quick setting change. At least not most of the time. I didn't ask you about Linux or Linux users, I offered several points re: why UEFI is such a bad idea for everyone, not just Linux users. And yes, it does prevent downgrades because previous versions of Windows don't have the hardwired keys. And I said it "could" block out third party software, not that it is in current implementation. This will come later along with the drastic DRM.
Funny that you would argue than I'm in control of my hardware with one breath, then deny the threat with another, but you're being just plain dishonest here and in the above. You know perfectly well that USB 3 inclusion isn't a comparable situation. Having USB 3 or not doesn't prevent me installing and using my OS of choice. UEFI does, and its designed to.
Frankly, the lack of logic/understanding in your post leads me to think you're either a Microsoft shill or just a troll. I'll be paying you no more attention either way.
Its not going to be a matter of matter of making a quick setting change. At least not most of the time. I didn't ask you about Linux or Linux users, I offered several points re: why UEFI is such a bad idea for everyone, not just Linux users. And yes, it does prevent downgrades because previous versions of Windows don't have the hardwired keys. And I said it "could" block out third party software, not that it is in current implementation. This will come later along with the drastic DRM.
Funny that you would argue than I'm in control of my hardware with one breath, then deny the threat with another, but you're being just plain dishonest here and in the above. You know perfectly well that USB 3 inclusion isn't a comparable situation. Having USB 3 or not doesn't prevent me installing and using my OS of choice. UEFI does, and its designed to.
Frankly, the lack of logic/understanding in your post leads me to think you're either a Microsoft shill or just a troll. I'll be paying you no more attention either way.
@xenu
Hardly surprising because you are just a Linux shill and a troll.
You own your hardware and can do whatever the features of that hardware allows you to do. If you buy a computer that has the feature where you can disable secure boot, you are in control of the hardware that you bought. If you buy a computer that does not have the feature where you can disable secure boot, you are still in control of the hardware that you bought. You are only limited by the feature set you chose to buy. If you chose to buy a USB 3 motherboard, you can use USB 3. If you chose to buy a motherboard that did not support USB 3, you can't turn around and claim that the hardware manufacturer isn't letting you control your hardware. You would come across as a whiney little idiot if you said such a thing.
You are absolutely in control of your hardware within the feature set that you chose to purchase.
And you are still lying about downgrading and you just admitted that you were lying about 3rd party software.
Now, please promise me that you will pay me no more attention. Correcting your blatant FUD is getting boring.
Goodbye.
Hardly surprising because you are just a Linux shill and a troll.
You own your hardware and can do whatever the features of that hardware allows you to do. If you buy a computer that has the feature where you can disable secure boot, you are in control of the hardware that you bought. If you buy a computer that does not have the feature where you can disable secure boot, you are still in control of the hardware that you bought. You are only limited by the feature set you chose to buy. If you chose to buy a USB 3 motherboard, you can use USB 3. If you chose to buy a motherboard that did not support USB 3, you can't turn around and claim that the hardware manufacturer isn't letting you control your hardware. You would come across as a whiney little idiot if you said such a thing.
You are absolutely in control of your hardware within the feature set that you chose to purchase.
And you are still lying about downgrading and you just admitted that you were lying about 3rd party software.
Now, please promise me that you will pay me no more attention. Correcting your blatant FUD is getting boring.
Goodbye.
Makes no sense, they hate Microsoft so why use it?? just stick to linux and let the softies have their fun...
against monopolistic M$ practices.
windoze is on the ropes and M$ is desperately trying to lock people in a sub par OS.
Power to the people!
windoze is on the ropes and M$ is desperately trying to lock people in a sub par OS.
Power to the people!
@The Linux Geek - Put down the koolaid and step back from the edge of the cliff Icarus.
@The Linux Geek
You know I heard Windoze from Micro$haft is a sub par OS. I guess that is what you get when you try and copy Windows from Microsoft. I can see how a simple minded person like you could get the two confused though.
You know I heard Windoze from Micro$haft is a sub par OS. I guess that is what you get when you try and copy Windows from Microsoft. I can see how a simple minded person like you could get the two confused though.
@The Linux Geek Geez, I'm surprised you're not running around saying "Hack the planet!"
@The Linux Geek windoze is on the ropes and M$ is desperately trying to lock people in a sub par OS.
Power to the people! IF that was true then there would be no uproar and Microsoft would be locking users into Linux... that is no more the case than Microsoft locking users into Windows. This is an OEM issue - man SJVN really has the ignorant sheep all riled up over this non issue.
Power to the people! IF that was true then there would be no uproar and Microsoft would be locking users into Linux... that is no more the case than Microsoft locking users into Windows. This is an OEM issue - man SJVN really has the ignorant sheep all riled up over this non issue.
I've never seen such blatant Microsoft FUD in my life than the comments directly above.
"So this group wants 90% of the computing world to be less secure so that 1% of the computing world doesn't have to spend 30 seconds disabling a setting before installing their OS?"
If it were only a matter of changing a quick setting, there wouldn't be so much outcry. But Microsoft isn't requiring OEMs to include that feature, which means most won't since it will cost more money. This isn't just about Linux, though. This about the ability of a convicted monopolist to force controversial changes in Windows without leaving people a way to revert to older versions.
"What happens if Microsoft's customers actually want secure boot, which we do?
This however, proves how unintelligent these Linux fans are, because Microsoft has clearly stated that even though UEFI is a requirement for Windows 8, secure boot can be disabled."
On what basis do you claim consumers want secure boot? If anything, this is an extremely consumer hostile move because:
a) Prevents "downgrades" should the masses despise Windows 8 a la Vista.
b) it could disable an enormous amount of third party software without hard coded keys.
c) You seem to have misconception here: In most cases, UEFI CANNOT be disabled.
"This also goes along with what I've thought all along, that most of these windows viruses are actually from Linux perpetrators, why would they want to lessen the potency of such a brazen security measure. If OEMs want other OS installation on their systems they will ship with an option to turn the feature off. "
On what basis do you accuse Linux users of writing Windows viruses? What makes you think we have something to gain by that?
If I was renting hardware from an OEM, you would have a point. However, the hardware is owned by me and they have no right to dictate what I do with it. Besides, anyone who's been around this industry knows that the OEMs are in Microsoft's back pocket because they need the Windows seal.
"Makes no sense, they hate Microsoft so why use it?? just stick to linux and let the softies have their fun... "
We're ok with that, but Microsoft isn't. The whole point of this, at least as far as Linux is concerned, is that Microsoft is forcing hardware changes that make Linux much, much more difficult to use, but doing it in a back door way that lets them blame it on the OEMs they control.
"So this group wants 90% of the computing world to be less secure so that 1% of the computing world doesn't have to spend 30 seconds disabling a setting before installing their OS?"
If it were only a matter of changing a quick setting, there wouldn't be so much outcry. But Microsoft isn't requiring OEMs to include that feature, which means most won't since it will cost more money. This isn't just about Linux, though. This about the ability of a convicted monopolist to force controversial changes in Windows without leaving people a way to revert to older versions.
"What happens if Microsoft's customers actually want secure boot, which we do?
This however, proves how unintelligent these Linux fans are, because Microsoft has clearly stated that even though UEFI is a requirement for Windows 8, secure boot can be disabled."
On what basis do you claim consumers want secure boot? If anything, this is an extremely consumer hostile move because:
a) Prevents "downgrades" should the masses despise Windows 8 a la Vista.
b) it could disable an enormous amount of third party software without hard coded keys.
c) You seem to have misconception here: In most cases, UEFI CANNOT be disabled.
"This also goes along with what I've thought all along, that most of these windows viruses are actually from Linux perpetrators, why would they want to lessen the potency of such a brazen security measure. If OEMs want other OS installation on their systems they will ship with an option to turn the feature off. "
On what basis do you accuse Linux users of writing Windows viruses? What makes you think we have something to gain by that?
If I was renting hardware from an OEM, you would have a point. However, the hardware is owned by me and they have no right to dictate what I do with it. Besides, anyone who's been around this industry knows that the OEMs are in Microsoft's back pocket because they need the Windows seal.
"Makes no sense, they hate Microsoft so why use it?? just stick to linux and let the softies have their fun... "
We're ok with that, but Microsoft isn't. The whole point of this, at least as far as Linux is concerned, is that Microsoft is forcing hardware changes that make Linux much, much more difficult to use, but doing it in a back door way that lets them blame it on the OEMs they control.
@xenu
I would have figured that Linux users knowledgeable enough to be able to compile Linux would be smart enough to figure this one out.
It seems though that it is the Windows users that are schooling the Linux users on this issue.
I would have figured that Linux users knowledgeable enough to be able to compile Linux would be smart enough to figure this one out.
It seems though that it is the Windows users that are schooling the Linux users on this issue.
@toddybottom
Your wording is a bit vague. Is there anything in particular I seem to be missing? Also, compiling Linux is only done by hobbyists these days.
Your wording is a bit vague. Is there anything in particular I seem to be missing? Also, compiling Linux is only done by hobbyists these days.
"If it were only a matter of changing a quick setting, there wouldn't be so much outcry."
It is.
So this outcry is a sign of a lack of critical thinking ability.
"On what basis do you claim consumers want secure boot?"
Linux users are constantly harping about how everyone should switch to Linux because it is more secure. Now you are saying that Windows users don't want to be more secure.
So this outcry is a sign of a lack of critical thinking ability.
"Prevents "downgrades" should the masses despise Windows 8 a la Vista."
Except it doesn't.
So this outcry is a sign of a lack of critical thinking ability.
" it could disable an enormous amount of third party software without hard coded keys."
Except it doesn't.
So this outcry is a sign of a lack of critical thinking ability.
"You seem to have misconception here: In most cases, UEFI CANNOT be disabled."
UEFI doesn't need to be disabled.
So this outcry is a sign of a lack of critical thinking ability.
" However, the hardware is owned by me and they have no right to dictate what I do with it. "
No one is telling you what you are allowed or not allowed to do with your hardware. Hardware has always come with a certain set of features and you are allowed to do anything you want with those features. If, however, a motherboard came without USB 3, would you be crying that the manufacturer was dictating to you that you aren't allowed to use USB 3? If you did that, you would immediately be ridiculed by anyone with any intelligence which, right now, seems something that is in short supply in the Linux community.
So this outcry is a sign of a lack of critical thinking ability.
Hopefully that is more clear and you now have a great idea of what it is that you are missing. Pass the message along if you don't want the Linux community to look even more ridiculous than they do right now.
It is.
So this outcry is a sign of a lack of critical thinking ability.
"On what basis do you claim consumers want secure boot?"
Linux users are constantly harping about how everyone should switch to Linux because it is more secure. Now you are saying that Windows users don't want to be more secure.
So this outcry is a sign of a lack of critical thinking ability.
"Prevents "downgrades" should the masses despise Windows 8 a la Vista."
Except it doesn't.
So this outcry is a sign of a lack of critical thinking ability.
" it could disable an enormous amount of third party software without hard coded keys."
Except it doesn't.
So this outcry is a sign of a lack of critical thinking ability.
"You seem to have misconception here: In most cases, UEFI CANNOT be disabled."
UEFI doesn't need to be disabled.
So this outcry is a sign of a lack of critical thinking ability.
" However, the hardware is owned by me and they have no right to dictate what I do with it. "
No one is telling you what you are allowed or not allowed to do with your hardware. Hardware has always come with a certain set of features and you are allowed to do anything you want with those features. If, however, a motherboard came without USB 3, would you be crying that the manufacturer was dictating to you that you aren't allowed to use USB 3? If you did that, you would immediately be ridiculed by anyone with any intelligence which, right now, seems something that is in short supply in the Linux community.
So this outcry is a sign of a lack of critical thinking ability.
Hopefully that is more clear and you now have a great idea of what it is that you are missing. Pass the message along if you don't want the Linux community to look even more ridiculous than they do right now.
@toddybottom - Nicely written but you can't convince zealots that they're not seeing things clearly, even if you offer to wipe the crap from their eyes after dislodging their cranium from their rectal cavity.
@toddybottom
"Linux users are constantly harping about how everyone should switch to Linux because it is more secure. Now you are saying that Windows users don't want to be more secure."
Wanting Secure Boot I guess is more secure. But how many of the tens of thousands of Windows viruses are boot sector viruses? It would only prevent those. Yeah, they are nasty; but there are not that many of these and they are stopped by a decent antivirus program in Windows.
""Prevents "downgrades" should the masses despise Windows 8 a la Vista."
Except it doesn't."
If UEFI is using keys tied to the OS, yes it is. Evidence is there that manufacturers CAN create a switch to turn off the UEFI, but will they? Are you sure?
"UEFI doesn't need to be disabled."
Only if you are running the OS that came with the PC. If you upgrade, yes it needs to be disabled. If you downgrade, yes it needs to be disabled. If you multi-boot, yes it needs to be disabled. If you change OS's to any *nix distro, yes it needs to be disabled.
"No one is telling you what you are allowed or not allowed to do with your hardware. Hardware has always come with a certain set of features and you are allowed to do anything you want with those features."
Until UEFI is not able to be turned off by any OEM. Then I'm limited from choosing my OS. Your USB3 argument is laughable at best.
Oh, BTW, if you're talking about compiling Linux then you are either Loverock Davidson or a relative. I've been running Linux for about 4 years now and I don't compile code or kernel.
"Linux users are constantly harping about how everyone should switch to Linux because it is more secure. Now you are saying that Windows users don't want to be more secure."
Wanting Secure Boot I guess is more secure. But how many of the tens of thousands of Windows viruses are boot sector viruses? It would only prevent those. Yeah, they are nasty; but there are not that many of these and they are stopped by a decent antivirus program in Windows.
""Prevents "downgrades" should the masses despise Windows 8 a la Vista."
Except it doesn't."
If UEFI is using keys tied to the OS, yes it is. Evidence is there that manufacturers CAN create a switch to turn off the UEFI, but will they? Are you sure?
"UEFI doesn't need to be disabled."
Only if you are running the OS that came with the PC. If you upgrade, yes it needs to be disabled. If you downgrade, yes it needs to be disabled. If you multi-boot, yes it needs to be disabled. If you change OS's to any *nix distro, yes it needs to be disabled.
"No one is telling you what you are allowed or not allowed to do with your hardware. Hardware has always come with a certain set of features and you are allowed to do anything you want with those features."
Until UEFI is not able to be turned off by any OEM. Then I'm limited from choosing my OS. Your USB3 argument is laughable at best.
Oh, BTW, if you're talking about compiling Linux then you are either Loverock Davidson or a relative. I've been running Linux for about 4 years now and I don't compile code or kernel.
@xenu
"This about the ability of a convicted monopolist to force controversial changes in Windows without leaving people a way to revert to older versions."
Not sure if you're aware of this or not, but there's nothing illegal about having a monopoly on anything. It is illegal to "abuse" the monopoly in certain ways, but that's not the same thing. Just in case you didn't know.
Add it to "M$", "The Borg", "Monkeyboy" as the list of things that make Linux users sounds like raging fanboi idiots..
"This about the ability of a convicted monopolist to force controversial changes in Windows without leaving people a way to revert to older versions."
Not sure if you're aware of this or not, but there's nothing illegal about having a monopoly on anything. It is illegal to "abuse" the monopoly in certain ways, but that's not the same thing. Just in case you didn't know.
Add it to "M$", "The Borg", "Monkeyboy" as the list of things that make Linux users sounds like raging fanboi idiots..
@daftkey But it's okay when windows fans use "mactards", "fandroids", "Icrap" etc.? Obviously, it applies to all camps. And what is the die hard window users favorite rant?
They want to have choice, so why is it, when someone else say's they want choice, they get slammed by windows fans?
Interesting.......
They want to have choice, so why is it, when someone else say's they want choice, they get slammed by windows fans?
Interesting.......
@xenu
If I buy a Dell computer, (I don't know about other brands, we buy Dell where I work,) I can return it in 30 days. So If I hate Win8 and/or I cannot disable secure boot, I return the computer to Dell for a full refund. If Dell eats a few of those, they will shift gears fast! M$ does have the OEMs in their back pocket, but only as far as the money goes. If something else pinches the money, the OEMs will fight back. M$ relented on Win'XP during the Vista debacle, didn't it?
If I buy a Dell computer, (I don't know about other brands, we buy Dell where I work,) I can return it in 30 days. So If I hate Win8 and/or I cannot disable secure boot, I return the computer to Dell for a full refund. If Dell eats a few of those, they will shift gears fast! M$ does have the OEMs in their back pocket, but only as far as the money goes. If something else pinches the money, the OEMs will fight back. M$ relented on Win'XP during the Vista debacle, didn't it?
Idiots, targetting wrong company and almost a year before the actual product will be launched.. so much hate for a successful product
Linux users are never happy. All they can can do is whine and cry about everything that doesn't cater to them. I'm giving Microsoft kudos for making a more secure environment, something you won't find with linux.
Instead of bickering amongst themselves I think the major industry players should work together to deliver a good ECOSYSTEM for everyone.
Secure boot is a good idea for the typical consumer. Full stop.
Flexibility is a good idea for everyone else. Full stop.
The EU has shown the way to solve the monopoly problem with Internet Explorer: an installation process offering a choice.
Develop the same for UEFI. While your at it make Apple and OEM's join in.
No problem if anyone doesn't want to play ball: fine them enough and commission a 3rd party to do the work.
Secure boot is a good idea for the typical consumer. Full stop.
Flexibility is a good idea for everyone else. Full stop.
The EU has shown the way to solve the monopoly problem with Internet Explorer: an installation process offering a choice.
Develop the same for UEFI. While your at it make Apple and OEM's join in.
No problem if anyone doesn't want to play ball: fine them enough and commission a 3rd party to do the work.
Reading is fundamental:
"This would make it impossible to install alternative operating systems like Linux, or even older versions of Windows, if the OEM doesn't bundle the secure keys with new OS releases AND the hardware vendor doesn't enable the secure-boot feature to be switched off."
The critical AND in this sentence means that you have to have an Microsoft key to even be able to switch the feature on and off.
The typical Windows user wouldn't be affected and wouldn't be more secure because of the feature discussed here. It's all of the people that are using multi-boot devices that would have the most problems.
Reading the comments here, it seems like the people that read this lack the ability to comprehend the actual impact.
"This would make it impossible to install alternative operating systems like Linux, or even older versions of Windows, if the OEM doesn't bundle the secure keys with new OS releases AND the hardware vendor doesn't enable the secure-boot feature to be switched off."
The critical AND in this sentence means that you have to have an Microsoft key to even be able to switch the feature on and off.
The typical Windows user wouldn't be affected and wouldn't be more secure because of the feature discussed here. It's all of the people that are using multi-boot devices that would have the most problems.
Reading the comments here, it seems like the people that read this lack the ability to comprehend the actual impact.
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
Facebook Activity
