Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Gummiboot restructured to allow Linux to work on SecureBoot systems
Edvard:
@40Hz: RE: bricking Samsung laptops: read deeper:
The Ubuntu development team has held talks with Samsung staff, who have identified the kernel's samsung-laptop driver as the prime suspect...
--- End quote ---
That said, it still wouldn't have happened without the UEFI silliness. I mean really, if UEFI actually offered a quantum step forward in functionality, I could live with the glitches until support matured, but I haven't seen anything really groundbreaking except giving Microsoft keys to the door they've always wanted.
Another thing to consider is this really only affects dual-boot environments, because if you can simply shop around for a UEFI chip that allows turning off SecureBoot, my Linux-only box is going to be just fine. But I have a few questions:
1- If SecureBoot is simply an option that needs to be turned on for OEM's that want to build systems that are Windows 8 certified, that doesn't mean installing Windows 8 will require SecureBoot to be turned on in order to boot, right?
2- How will Hypervisor+VM setups be affected? That's how pretty much any big web/cloud service is running right now, and it would not make any financial sense to lock them out, whether it is Xen, VMware ESXi, or MS Hyper-V.
Also, I wonder how hard it would be to replace UEFI/SecureBoot with TianoCore/Coreboot. That would be sweet.
Carol Haynes:
Intel will get out of the traditional desktop motherboard business
-40hz (February 04, 2013, 08:19 PM)
--- End quote ---
If AMD have any sense they will clean up.
Actually if Intel and AMD (and other major manufacturers) simply refused to produce UEFI motherboards that give MS the key to the lock, or even go back to standard BIOS board production only, it would force MS to respond, especially now Windows 8 is in the wild and can't be installed on SecureBoot systems without a valid key. If MS play hardball it will be sales of Win 8 that will suffer.
Seriously where are the class action law suits in all this? The EU caused problems for MS because IE and WMP were included in Windows, this is far worse as it effectively removes competitors from selling product at all!
40hz:
Intel will get out of the traditional desktop motherboard business
-40hz (February 04, 2013, 08:19 PM)
--- End quote ---
If AMD have any sense they will clean up.-Carol Haynes (February 05, 2013, 05:44 AM)
--- End quote ---
AMD is experiencing its own financial problems lately. Sales are off 25%. Don't expect them to rock the boat.
Actually if Intel and AMD (and other major manufacturers) simply refused to produce UEFI motherboards that give MS the key to the lock, or even go back to standard BIOS board production only, it would force MS to respond, especially now Windows 8 is in the wild and can't be installed on SecureBoot systems without a valid key. If MS play hardball it will be sales of Win 8 that will suffer.
--- End quote ---
True - but "so not gonna happen" as my niece would say. Both Intel and AMD are hoping Windows 8 will be a big win and spark a buying spree. Neither can hurt Microsoft without hurting themselves. Expect no backbone from those two.
Seriously where are the class action law suits in all this? The EU caused problems for MS because IE and WMP were included in Windows, this is far worse as it effectively removes competitors from selling product at all!
--- End quote ---
Microsoft has a loophole in that incorporating UEFI is (technically) left up to the hardware manufacturers. Exactly how "voluntary" it is in practice is another matter - and one that will need a court ruling to finally decide. But thats something that can (and likely will) be dragged out for decades if it ever comes to that.
But even more to the point, most governments and industry regulatory bodies have now become aware of just how powerful an open hardware platform is. And how potentially threatening it can be to the powers that be - as Anonymous, Pirate Bay, and Wikileaks have repeatedly demonstrated.
Wanting more control over the hardware (and lacking the constitutional authority to get it) I see a trend by most governments to look the other way at anything that tries to rein in computer users.
Lack of safeguards to privacy, warrantless 'fishing expeditions' courtesy of bullied ISPs and database owners, kiddie-porn hysteria campaigns, allowing ridiculous IP lawsuits, granting equally ludicrous patents, allowing ongoing abuse of copyright laws and DMCA takedown notices...
No...I don't expect to see much relief from government on this score.
Back in the Regan Error Era, political and business interests discovered you could much more easily advance your agenda by the selective enforcement of laws. Ronald Regan was a master at pressuring the U.S. Justice Department not to enforce any laws his administration disagreed with.
And I worked out quite well for him and his cronies.
I think you'll see the same thing happen here. And I don't think the EU will be above it.
Carol Haynes:
Microsoft has a loophole in that incorporating UEFI is (technically) left up to the hardware manufacturers. Exactly how "voluntary" it is in practice is another matter - and one that will need a court ruling to finally decide. But thats something that can (and likely will) be dragged out for decades if it ever comes to that.
-40hz (February 05, 2013, 08:57 AM)
--- End quote ---
Not strictly true - anyone OEM wanting to ship Windows 8 has to use a system with SecureBoot enabled. It is part of the OEM agreement - unless it has changed recently?
40hz:
^Gets tricky. They need (last I heard) to have it enabled. But it's supposedly up to the manufacturer how (or if) it can be turned off.
Windows 8 doesn't require it. At least not yet. I have copies of Win 8 running in non-UEFI PCs. So it's not like it won't run if it doesn't see UEFI.
The big question is what Win8 will do if it does. Because if that means having to go into the hardware settings and turn SB off in order to boot Linux - and then back in to turn it on in order to boot Win 8 - then that extra annoyance will effectively eliminate the incentive to dual-boot for most people.
And if the big manufacturers decide not to allow you to disable SecureBoot (as a condition of purchase) then it's pretty much over for Linux unless it dances to Microsofts's tune - as Redhat and some other sellout distros have indicated they're all to willing to do.
Slippery slope...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version