"In its 14-page complaint, Hispalinux said Windows 8 contained an "obstruction mechanism" called UEFI Secure Boot that controls the start-up of the computer and means users must seek keys from Microsoft to install another operating system.
"The group said it was "a de facto technological jail for computer booting systems ... making Microsoft's Windows platform less neutral than ever".
Wouldn't it make more sense to go after the hardware manufacturers? They're the ones that put Win8 on the machines, they could have put something less obstructive.
I would think manufacturers not being able to sell in Europe would have much wider reaching results.
You could argue that MS is using its market position to force manufacturers to adopt UEFI. However, I think MS is acting in a pretty non-competative way on this one, and have a completely valid argument that UEFI is good for security.
Consider that MS has a signing service available. Using this service their are various solutions to the UEFI problem, including distributions getting their own signatures, and a general solution shim that would allow the user to boot from an OS even if it is not signed in a way the UEFI recognizes as valid.
Also, UEFI secure boot does not require that users be unable to disable it or add their own keys. (In fact, MS requires x86 computers to be able to disable it).
UEFI secure boot does still increase the barrier for end-users to install 3rd party OSes, however I do not see any reason to believe this is intentional, but rather that this use case in uncommon enough that it is not what is optimized for.
Also, if you are going to install another OS on your computer, I do not think it is unreasonable that you should have to do something in the BIOS. Doing so in this case is actually simple if the instillation instructions tell you how. And the 'scary' element doesn't seem any different from the 'scary' permissions popup that you get when you need to run a program as an administrator (or from an un-trusted source if I recall).
Alright this is getting ridiculous, we aren't living in the 90s anymore and we should be encouraging healthy competition. We now have better alternatives like Macbooks, Chromebooks etc. I can't buy into the reason that Microsoft issued secure boot only to undermine Linux. Infact, Microsoft requires all x86 Windows 8 machines to be able to turn off secure boot and/or add their own keys. This also applies for their own manufactured Surface x86 tablets.
I am really looking forward to something like secure boot. Why? Imagine using Truecrypt to encrypt your entire hard drive with 3 layers encryption, and only to defeated by a pesky 10kb keylogging bootloader malware. So unless someone has an alternative solution to this, I am sticking up for secure boot and the ability to add my own keys.
3 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 25.1 ms ] thread"The group said it was "a de facto technological jail for computer booting systems ... making Microsoft's Windows platform less neutral than ever".
Wouldn't it make more sense to go after the hardware manufacturers? They're the ones that put Win8 on the machines, they could have put something less obstructive.
I would think manufacturers not being able to sell in Europe would have much wider reaching results.
Consider that MS has a signing service available. Using this service their are various solutions to the UEFI problem, including distributions getting their own signatures, and a general solution shim that would allow the user to boot from an OS even if it is not signed in a way the UEFI recognizes as valid.
Also, UEFI secure boot does not require that users be unable to disable it or add their own keys. (In fact, MS requires x86 computers to be able to disable it).
UEFI secure boot does still increase the barrier for end-users to install 3rd party OSes, however I do not see any reason to believe this is intentional, but rather that this use case in uncommon enough that it is not what is optimized for. Also, if you are going to install another OS on your computer, I do not think it is unreasonable that you should have to do something in the BIOS. Doing so in this case is actually simple if the instillation instructions tell you how. And the 'scary' element doesn't seem any different from the 'scary' permissions popup that you get when you need to run a program as an administrator (or from an un-trusted source if I recall).
I am really looking forward to something like secure boot. Why? Imagine using Truecrypt to encrypt your entire hard drive with 3 layers encryption, and only to defeated by a pesky 10kb keylogging bootloader malware. So unless someone has an alternative solution to this, I am sticking up for secure boot and the ability to add my own keys.