11 responses

  1. joncr
    July 6, 2012

    Talking about what Microsoft “should” do vis-a-vis secure boot is typically irrelevant FSF moral ranting. They see this as a moral and ethical issue. Fine. But why should a hardware vendor who is commited to making a profit convert to FSF’ism and start selling hardware that won’t run Windows?

    Where was the FSF before Microsoft’s implementation of Secure Boot became a fait accompli? Why weren’t they influencing the outcome of discussions on UEFI/Securte Boot? Now, they’re sitting back taking holier-than-thou potshots at people who actually distribute products that normal people use and expecting them to hobble themselves just to please the FSF.

    If the FSF wants to lead the free software world, then it needs to be there when it counts, not show up after the fact and demand sacrificial victims to its brand of purity.

  2. yort
    July 6, 2012

    Yawn.
    Yet another article stating how Linux companies who are doing well should sacrifice themselves.
    While I agree that Microsoft is using monopolistic means to harm non-Microsoft software companies, I don’t agree that companies who have a large stake in this should only take one form of action.
    Red Hat and Ubuntu are still free to pursue charges that Microsoft is behaving illegally. And they are now able to weather the storm this has caused.

  3. Carling
    July 6, 2012

    It’s about time that Microsoft directors where put in their place once and for all. HTF has one company got so powerful that it can dictate to the worlds governments it’s terms of use for computers,

    It does not take a genius to workout that governments world wide are not going to be dictated to by Microsoft telling them they have to use windows 8. Pay MS billions of dollars annually for the end users license fees and support. for the privilege.

  4. doggy dogg
    July 6, 2012

    I do not want to dive into doucheness discussion who is the doucheiest of them all. (personally I do not like Dell not providing the option to ship the drive without OS bit either shmackintoze or shwindoze — as a result i end up paying extra dollaz for bits free harddrive) anyhow…

    There has to be trusted third party (TTP) when it comes to key signing and distribution. This way either shaft or buntu or red hate chain off from TTP hierarchy. Other ways they will otherwise tear up and try dying to get the bananas. the sad thing is that most do not understand the problem well.

    one thing for sure… there will be other ways as well as other schemes to secure boot. then, you all saw that comment about hashing rather than signing then encrypting and current hardware 1024 bit limit

  5. Grigor
    July 7, 2012

    @joncr: FSF protested loudly long before the MS “Secure Boot” implementation became “fait accompli”, but you weren’t there to support them, and they failed. Where you were?

    @yort: It is too attractive to some Big Corp mentality to see the other Linux distros as the competitor, and MS as the friend. Or maybe there is some new warmth between MS and Red Had / Ubuntu we don’t know of…

  6. spacegoat
    July 8, 2012

    Can somebody please describe the risk that “secure boot” is supposed to mitigate? Aliens changing my operating system during the night?

    Most end users and businesses never change their operating system. This whole story seems to be designed by Microsoft to cause disruption to competitors.

    What is the risk that “secure boot” is supposed to mitigate?

  7. james
    July 8, 2012

    simple answer:

    1: install (or keep the presently installed) windows.

    2: run a bios flasher and overwrite the devil-code with a patched bios.

    3: erase the rubish from the harddrive.

    4: install your o.s. of choice.

  8. spacegoat
    July 8, 2012

    A risk analysis here:
    https://www.linux.com/learn/tutorials/588498-uefi-secure-boot-big-hassle-questionable-benefit

    “I think this just another piece of security theater that will inconvenience many and benefit no one.

  9. shel
    July 8, 2012

    Ditch Red Hat and Ubuntu and install Debian….Tell Microsft to fu..k off..

  10. RLH100
    July 9, 2012

    Since when has Micro$oft been dominating the ARM processor market? Have they not they tryed to enter this market many times. Have they ever had more than a single digit market share in the ARM market? They are trying again with the Surface tablet.

    The other thing about the ARM market is that devices thend to be purpose built for a specific use like cell phones and tablets. Have not seen many articles on replacing Android with a linux distro yet.

Back to top