Windows 8 OEM specs may block Linux booting

http://www.itworld.com/it-managementstrategy/205255/windows-8-oem-specs-may-block-linux-booting

by ramen • 15 years ago

275 138 15 years ago

daeken2• 15 years ago

This could block Linux from booting, but realistically speaking, does anyone believe that will happen? It seems very, very unlikely to me that you won't be able to disable signing restrictions at the firmware level.

mjg59• 15 years ago

I'm told that at least one vendor will be providing some systems that don't allow you to disable the requirement.

jrockway5• 15 years ago

I'm told that at least one vendor is going to lose a lot of money when its investors find out about this.

idonthack• 15 years ago

Well I'M told they WON'T.

Hyena5• 15 years ago

But what product will they be putting the lock-in on? It may not matter, as we've seen with mobile OSes which, from the perspective of the median buyer, are locked in.

jjm• 15 years ago

It makes somewhat some sense that MS will do this especially since Hyper-V (VM Hypervisor) is now built-in to Windows8. "Want Linux? You need Windows too..."

Other options?:

- DIY with OEM materials - Apple :-P

mhd• 15 years ago

Didn't some manufacturer mess up ACPI stuff on purpose so that a non-Windows OS would have power saving / noise trouble?

karolisd• 15 years ago

Does this effect dual booting OS X? I doubt the side-effect of blocking Linux boots was anything but a coincidence. But could Microsoft be fearful of Hackintoshes becoming more popular and a increase of OS X running on non-Apple hardware?

elithrar• 15 years ago

> Does this effect dual booting OS X? I doubt the side-effect of blocking Linux boots was anything but a coincidence. But could Microsoft be fearful of Hackintoshes becoming more popular and a increase of OS X running on non-Apple hardware?

I doubt it. Whilst I don't mean to belittle the hard work that goes into the hackintosh projects out there, we're talking about a tiny, tiny group of people that probably have an imperceptible impact on MSFT's bottom line.

mattgreenrocks2• 15 years ago

Yep. Compatibility is extremely dicey on Hackintoshes -- the best seem to be running hardware that is chipset identical to those in Macs.

I'd be more worried about Apple waking up one day and shipping an update that breaks everything.

cosgroveb2• 15 years ago

Hackintoshes a threat to Windows? No offense, but that's laughable. It's been awhile since I put together one but it's such a huge pain in the ass that even most people capable of putting OS X on ordinary hardware won't bother.

sciurus2• 15 years ago

Here is a direct link to Matthew Garret's blog post so that you can skip itworld's paraphrasing.

http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/5552.html

timtadh• 15 years ago

"An OS with a Pkek matching that installed in the firmware may add additional keys to the whitelist."

Does this mean you can just add you own key and self sign any code you want?

keeperofdakeys• 15 years ago

Presumably you have to sign a pkek key with the firmware key. Even then, you don't actually have full control of your OS's kernel, so it may not be easy to insert a key.

belthesar• 15 years ago

Thank you for this. Sensationalist journalism to stir the pot doesn't bring answers, it just confuses more.

jrockway5• 15 years ago

I doubt any major vendor will do this. First off, they don't want to be locked into selling Microsoft-only machines. If they can't pretend Linux is an option, Microsoft can charge them $1000 for a Windows license and there's nothing they can do about it. If they have Linux hanging over Microsoft's head, though, they'll get better pricing on Windows. (Think this won't happen? It already did with XP on netbooks. When Microsoft realized that everyone was happy to get $100 off the price of their laptop to run Firefox under Linux instead of under Windows, they had no choice but to make it nearly free.)

If that doesn't work, the need for booting non-standard Windows images will save us. I've never worked for any company that ran a stock Windows install -- everyone rolls their own. If new machines won't boot this image, guess what, that new machine is bought from some vendor that doesn't do this to them. And the only reason most people use Windows at home is because they use Windows at work. If big companies started migrating away from Windows, Microsoft could be in serious trouble. (Yup, Microsoft Word is much nicer than LibreOffice Writer or AbiWord. But you don't know that if you've never used it. Or, you don't care, because you're writing a memo, not a book. And that's $600 Microsoft loses right there.)

Next, we're forgetting the all-important server market. Nobody uses Windows as a server OS, so all those servers are going to have to be able to run Grub. Since servers are what make the OEMs money (they actually need that quad core chip, you don't), keeping users of that market happy will be the hardware companies' biggest concern. If Intel chips stop booting Linux, guess what, AMD is the new king of the market.

Finally, many of these companies are in markets other than consumer computers, and they won't want to alienate their other partners. If, say, Samsung says "our hardware will only run Windows", then they won't be manufacturing Android phones or Chromebooks anymore. And that's a big deal, because they won't be manufacturing iPhones either, and that means they're out of the mobile market. (Have you ever seen anyone without MVP certification anywhere near a Windows Phone? I didn't think so.)

Basically, Windows is important, but not so important that anyone would want to be the first to go Windows-only in hardware. Hardware companies want to provide nice computers at a nice price. End users mostly want to browse the web. This puts Microsoft in a position to do exactly what the market wants, not what it thinks it can bear. When you're at the top, the only place to go is down. And that is where Microsoft is going.

rfugger• 15 years ago

I doubt that secure boot is a factor in this, since it would be easy for vendors to disable by default in the factory if they wanted to install Linux.

The point of the article isn't that the machines will be Windows-only, but that dual booting may no longer be possible. It makes a point of emphasizing that secure booting will likely be easy for the user to disable, although that will disable Windows 8 as well.

dpark7• 15 years ago

> The point of the article isn't that the machines will be Windows-only, but that dual booting may no longer be possible. It makes a point of emphasizing that secure booting will likely be easy for the user to disable, although that will disable Windows 8 as well.

Never going to happen. Win8 will install on machines built for Win7.

Win 8 is not going to refuse to boot on machines that have boot signing disabled.

InclinedPlane• 15 years ago

Sorry, I don't buy it.

No PC OEM has a rational fear of MS doing bad by them, regardless of lock-in. Firstly, MS has no good reason to do that since it would just put the retail price of the PCs too high to sell well, and MS is a volume business and knows it. They're smart enough to know to avoid hurting their own sales. They already know who and how to charge ridiculously high prices per client for software and its not OEMs or retail consumers. Secondly, the OEMs so affected would likely run to the FTC immediately and file complaints of unfair trade practices, and then MS would find itself in a fecal-tornado of bad press and government action that it would surely not enjoy. Thirdly, OEM licenses can only go so high, as then OEMs could just buy and install retail copies of Windows on their machines. In short, this whole fantastical scenario goes against everything that MS has done as a business and everything that MS has done as part of creating and maintaining relationships with OEMs over the past 3 decades, it makes no sense.

As far as the server market, those machines are almost invariably different hardware than commodity PCs. I don't think it's likely that PC component makers or OEMs will opt for Windows-only systems, but I don't think you've put forward a sufficient argument on why that should be the case.

beagle33• 15 years ago

> No PC OEM has a rational fear of MS doing bad by them, regardless of lock-in. Firstly, MS has no good reason to do that since it would just put the retail price of the PCs too high to sell well, and MS is a volume business and knows it.

Microsoft already prices it differently for different OEMs. They are already in mortal fear than Microsoft will change it, even without the technology to enforce it.

Can't find a link now, but in one of the big computer trade shows, in the morning Asus said they'll be promoting linux on the recent 9" eee. Afternoon, they apologized and said they will only promote Windows, and will in fact redesign it to better fit windows. The difference was apparently made by a call from Microsoft that threatened their volume licensing deal.

> MS would find itself in a fecal-tornado of bad press and government action that it would surely not enjoy.

The government works for Microsoft. MS had some fear of antitrust back in the late 90s, but they've since become one of the largest lobbyists, buying politicians on both sides. They are not touchable by antitrust or any other government action in the foreseeable future.

wmf3• 15 years ago

they don't want to be locked into selling Microsoft-only machines.

True to some extent, but they can always create Linux models that just don't include the MS public key.

the need for booting non-standard Windows images will save us.

Customized Windows images should have the same signature since the signed components (kernel, drivers, etc.) will be the same.

the all-important server market

This either doesn't apply to servers or the vendors will just create Linux models.

If Intel chips stop booting Linux

To be clear, that is not what we're talking about. This is an optional firmware feature (and I assume it will apply to all logoed PCs regardless of processor type).

dpark7• 15 years ago

> If that doesn't work, the need for booting non-standard Windows images will save us. I've never worked for any company that ran a stock Windows install -- everyone rolls their own. If new machines won't boot this image, guess what, that new machine is bought from some vendor that doesn't do this to them.

That's not how this works. It doesn't expect that the entire OS install is signed. It expects that the kernel is signed. "Non-standard" Windows installs don't generally futz with the Kernel. If you work for a company that uses a hacked kernel internally, please let me know, so I can make sure I'm not invested.

> Nobody uses Windows as a server OS

Microsoft's server product(along with its related tools and products) is massively successful. The Internet darlings may not run Windows Server, but many, many companies do.

> If, say, Samsung says "our hardware will only run Windows", then they won't be manufacturing Android phones or Chromebooks anymore.

Why would anyone do that? Even if Samsung sold some hardware that was locked down to only Windows, why would they suddenly stop selling other hardware? There's just no point. They already sell devices that are effectively locked down to Android, but that doesn't preclude them continuing to sell Windows laptops.

irahul4• 15 years ago

> Microsoft's server product(along with its related tools and products) is massively successful. The Internet darlings may not run Windows Server, but many, many companies do.

Yes, and Linux as a server is massively successful. And the internet darlings are one of the biggest customers. If a machine can't boot linux because of the signed kernel requirements enforced at the firmware, those internet darlings would move to machines that can. That isn't a risk intel el al. are going to take, especially with AMD breathing down its back.

darklajid• 15 years ago

Where do you see the requirement that the kernel has to be signed? I only see them mentioning the boot loader, which should be something entirely different (both on Windows and Linux, as far as I'm aware. I admit that my knowledge about the Windows boot process is incomplete).

If I'm correct (?) your whole reply to that point was a bit over the top, especially the 'tell me where you work so that I can ignore you' part.

Edit: Reading the original source (I recommend it!) confuses me. It says 'unsigned binaries will not load', but still: I'm still reading that as 'will not be loaded by the UEFI firmware' - which should only need to load the bootloader (+ relevant drivers) as far as I understand it?

recoiledsnake2• 15 years ago

> Nobody uses Windows as a server OS,

This is the problem with getting tech news only from HN.

palish• 15 years ago

Yes. At my last job, they had 200+ servers, all Windows.

When I tried to bring up Linux as an option, they sort of winced and said "Linux... ehhh... it's hard to get Linux doing what you want."

th0ma54• 15 years ago

I read this as no-one uses Windows (desktop) as a server OS. This is true.

irahul4• 15 years ago

> This is the problem with getting tech news only from HN.

Most of us have worked one or more tech jobs, and HN isn't the source for the assumption that nobody uses Windows as servers. That nobody is far fetched - of course .net shops will most probably be deploying on Windows; for some reasons most of the Java shop do so as well.

But outside that, Linux or BSD is the favored deployment platform. And the OP's argument basically boils down to server vendors can't afford to not boot Linux, not when Linux has a significant market share.

pointyhat2• 15 years ago

I've n ever worked anywhere that doesn't use Windows as a server OS.

kamaal5• 15 years ago

Here in India, Microsoft is famous only because the pirated version is freely available from anywhere, thorough anyone at anytime.That's the only reason why everybody uses it all the time.

Take away the free option, and the non industry consumers will just dump their OS. What is stopping Linux from ruling the Desktop market is a awesome UI.

Now, I decide to buy a netbook for browsing and light development. I can save upto 1500 rupees on the OS if I go in for a pre loaded freeDOS version. So this is what I have decided, to buy a good HP netbook which comes close to 15000 rupees. Install Ubuntu LTS version on it. Remain hassle free for the next two years. And spend the saved 1500 rupees on buying a good headphone to listen to music.

I don't see any reason why I must remotely feel the need to use Windows anymore. Unless ofcourse I need to work on a word document. Most of the times OpenOffice is sufficient, if it isn't I just walk upto the next DTP store around my place, pay the guy 20 bucks and get the work done in an hour.

tbrownaw2• 15 years ago

> Nobody uses Windows as a server OS

Which is why my employer really doesn't use Outlook/Exchange for email, or Sharepoint for the intranet, or IIS for the public website, or ActiveDirectory to manage logins and whatever else it does, or ....

Maybe you mean, "nobody uses only Windows as a server OS"? But even tho that would work for my employer (we also have Linux and AIX) and probably all large companies (including Microsoft?), I'm sure there are a ton of smaller ones it doesn't apply to.

rbanffy7• 15 years ago

> Which is why my employer really doesn't use Outlook/Exchange for email, or Sharepoint for the intranet, or IIS for the public website, or ActiveDirectory to manage logins and whatever else it does, or ....

If you really have to live with all that stuff, I'm deeply sorry for you. I use Exchange and AD and it's bad enough.

rodh257• 15 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Windows_and_Linux... http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/behind-the-idc-data-wind... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_system... http://microsoft-news.com/idc-windows-server-dominates-serve...

Estimates of between 40-75% of all servers are Windows based. While Linux is ahead in Web servers (71% market share), they aren't the only type of server going around...

These stats are hard to measure as they can't really account for people who just install free linux distros, but in terms of sold Linux based licenses, Microsoft is ahead. At the very least it shows the that the assertion "no one uses Windows as a server OS" is far from the truth. 5-6 billion dollars revenue a quarter is hardly 'no one'.

slowpoke• 15 years ago

> Yup, Microsoft Word is much nicer than LibreOffice Writer or AbiWord. But you don't know that if you've never used it. Or, you don't care, because you're writing a memo, not a book. And that's $600 Microsoft loses right there.

The very last thing for which I'd consider using MS Word (or any WYSIWYG processor, for that matter) would be writing a book (or any prolonged text which concentrates on the content). Seriously, if you do this you've never even thought about the fact that there are alternatives which are vastly superior for such tasks (one of which being plaintext. Yes, plaintext). I don't get why you would even consider writing a book in a document processor - save for LyX, but that's not exactly a standard word processor.

Sorry for the rant, I mostly agree with you. The general development still scares me though.

ghshephard• 15 years ago

The first paragraph is just silly:

"After years of trying to cut off Linux growth as a desktop platform on x86 and x64 PCs, Microsoft may have actually figured out a way to stop Linux deployments on client PCs dead in their tracks."

I'm quite certain Microsoft has (A) not put any significant effort into cutting off growth as a desktop platform, and (B) If they had, they were almost completely successful, and characterizing it as "trying" implies that they had limited success.

mattgreenrocks2• 15 years ago

Shhh, not so loud! Such thoughts would destabilize Slashdot if they got out!

Seriously, this seems especially short-sighted, as the perception is that MS is getting thrashed by Apple in the consumer market. I think its more about preventing malware from getting ahold of the boot process, side effects be damned.

th0ma54• 15 years ago

That's a chilling thing IMHO when we rely on a single corporation to protect us. As far as the /. like rhetoric, you're using the parent's opinion that MS hasn't been trying, and is indeed seeing a steady increasing competition in desktop screen space (which I've seen in two different Fortune 500 companies first hand within the last 6 years), so if that isn't true, then the rhetoric isn't just rhetoric.

Hyena5• 15 years ago

I don't see this. Apple sells hardware; incidentally, it comes with its own OS. I haven't met many people who bought a Mac for MacOS since Windows XP.

sunyc• 15 years ago

chromeos has similar thing, with a developer switch at back basically turns off the signature validation in firmware. what they should worry about is, which CA root to put in there.

prayag• 15 years ago

I bought a Windows machine from Amazon. The reason that I wasn't able to install Linux was acceptable enough for Amazon to pay for return shipping.

daeken2• 15 years ago

What shipping Windows machine can you not install Linux on? Or are you talking about some sort of hardware support issue?

tree_of_item• 15 years ago

To everyone saying "I doubt anyone will do this": wasn't the consensus also against Microsoft restricting application distribution to their app store?

recoiledsnake2• 15 years ago

Care to link to some examples of said consensus?

dpark7• 15 years ago

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, this is silly FUD. Microsoft isnt stupid enough (or evil enough, despite what some like to believe) to attempt to force PC oems to effectively block all OSes except Windows. They know this wouldn't work, and there'd be no point in trying to force it.

Supporting hardened boot is not the same as requiring it. Microsoft already utilizes this for BitLocker. You can still install Linux on a machine that supports hardened booting and signed images. You just can't enable hardened boot unless you use signed images.

jonhohle• 15 years ago

> Microsoft isnt stupid enough (or evil enough, despite what some like to believe) to attempt to force PC oems to effectively block all OSes except Windows.

Um, Microsoft used to do exactly this. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/08/31/jean_louis_gass_233_... I don't know if they have the muscle or the guts to try something like this again.

edit: fixed typo

dpark7• 15 years ago

There's a rather large difference between contractually forbidding PC OEMs from selling Windows machines bundled with BeOS and technologically blocking non-Windows OSes from executing. It's one thing to say "you can't bundle another OS with mine". It's another thing entirely to say "your hardware can never run any OS except mine".

rkalla• 15 years ago

+1, hardened boot is something we will address eventually with MBR and BIOS viruses on the rise again. Makes sense for MS to push In this direction and Intel/AMD aren't going to lock down that hardware to anything else.

Your $200 Dell from Best Buy might, but that will be part of the subsidy from MS. Meh.

braco_alva• 15 years ago

But even if this was true, there is still ways around this right? I mean rEFIt does a pretty good job booting up Linux in Mac, so wouldn't this be possible in those PC's as well?

raphman2• 15 years ago

nope, rEFIt would need to be signed, too, as it is involved in the boot process.

lhnn• 15 years ago

Wouldn't this draw anti-trust battles? Since complying with EFI signing is against the license of one of the only other major alternatives to Windows, this would not bode well for Microsoft.

toni• 15 years ago

I was thinking about the same thing. Can the government intervene and label this as anti-competitive?

dctoedt• 15 years ago

Wouldn't this draw anti-trust battles?

Could be -- it sounds like a possible "tie-out" (a variation on tie-in). AFAIK There haven't been many tie-out cases, but as antitrust litigator George Gordon [1] put it a few years back, "The term “tie out” is often used to refer to arrangements in which a license prohibits a licensee from dealing in and/or developing competing, noninfringing technologies. [Footnote omitted] Such arrangements have been found to be intellectual property misuse and could form the basis for an antitrust claim as well." [2]

If MS were to do something like this, I imagine Gary Reback [3], its nemesis in previous antitrust battles, would be all over it ....

[1] http://www.dechert.com/george_gordon/

[2] http://www.dechert.com/library/Analyzing%20IP%20License%20-%...

[3] http://www.garyreback.com/garyreback.html

beagle33• 15 years ago

> Wouldn't this draw anti-trust battles? Since complying with EFI signing is against the license of one of the only other major alternatives to Windows, this would not bode well for Microsoft.

And who do you expect to pursue this anti-trust?

The US government?

Oh, I didn't realize you were joking! ha ha, funny.

The US government is owned by big corps, MS being one of them. Something really weird has to happen for them to turn against their corporate masters. (And don't compare it to the previous anti-trust case - at the time, microsoft wasn't lobbying and paying, sorry, donating to, politicians from both parties)

jsz0• 15 years ago

Linux (on the desktop) is probably of little or no concern to Microsoft at this point. They've got bigger problems to worry about. If they want to focus on making computers sold with Windows offer the best possible experience it will benefit the most people. Possibly it will make things harder for Linux users but from Microsoft's perspective if the OEM is shipping Windows there's no reason to consider Linux as part of the equation.

th0ma54• 15 years ago

My personal opinion is that it is indeed little concern, but a little concern to many parts of MS, which compared to many other companies may well look like a dedicated anti-linux corporation that outnumbers them.

kvk• 15 years ago

The start of a Windows jailbreaking scene?

bitops• 15 years ago

Agree that its a non-issue. Linux is established, would be a really dumb move to block it like this.

In two weeks we'll have forgotten all about it.

dorian-graph• 15 years ago

It's TPM like fear-mongering again.

elehack• 15 years ago

Could it be that the "fear-mongering" and subsequent outrage is a major reason why we didn't have this kind of lock-down 5-10 years ago?

I thing mjg's wait-and-see approach is good to do. Not panic yet. But certainly not to forget either - keep an eye out, see how it develops, and be prepared to oppose lock-down through various channels should it come (and hopefully before it is to late).

thristian2• 15 years ago

But what is "Linux"? If it were a package you could buy in a box from the store, the manufacturer would just sign a contract with OEMs to have a suitable key present in all manufactured computers, but Linux isn't like that. What if I want to compile my own kernel in order to try out an experimental feature, or help test a driver? What if I need to upgrade my boot-loader?

The only alternative to 'blocking Linux' is 'allowing anything to run', and if manufacturers were happy to allow that, they wouldn't bother with these features in the first place.

I'm sure there'll still be lots of computers that are capable of running Linux - multi-thousand dollar servers and high-end workstations; the kind of computers you buy through your account manager. It seems pretty sensible to block unauthorised OSs on low-end computers — the kind that ship with OS X or Windows Basic, the kind where minimizing support costs is vitally important.

Unfortunately, that's the same market segment where I and everybody I know got their start: taking over an old Windows box and putting Linux to see what the fuss was all about.

rdl• 15 years ago

This is overblown. However, if this means secure boot hardware is even more widely available, it is a win -- if the keys are under control of the user or his organization, it is a huge security win.

guard-of-terra• 15 years ago

Does this also mean that you won't be able to boot Windows 8 on a PC you assembled yourself? Oh, they did not think of that.

One more reason to hate MS and want it die everywhere.

ivanbernat• 15 years ago

It looks to me like it's designed with tablets in mind, not desktops / laptops.

gizzlon• 15 years ago

The articles doesn't say, but this would require an TPM in the machine to be successful.. right?

Without a TPM how can the EFI be trusted? You just have to replace it as well as the boot loader and kernel.

yason• 15 years ago

I've long thought that the only place where I allow Windows is in a virtual machine. This seems to hint in that direction: buy a machine that isn't broken (can boot Linux) and do your Windows duties under VirtualBox or something.

dramaticus3• 15 years ago

Summary : Machines that have the "Windows 8" logo must have UEFI, which means the bootloader must be signed with a key that's in the BIOS. Additionally the OS can use the keys to check other signed code : device drivers etc.

My conclusion : A smart vendor will include a signed program that will manage said keys in the BIOS.

brokensystem• 15 years ago

I use ubuntu but surely my harddrive is full of malware (boot system compromised). Linux is for hacker playing with backdoors. I like free software and linux, but if I need a secure system, I should have to pay the prize of using windows 8.

paulja• 15 years ago

Thats one way to stop all the shops that slap XP on modern hardware, due to corporate IT policy.

tbrownaw2• 15 years ago

> The two alternatives here are for Windows to be signed with a Microsoft key and for the public part of that key to be included with all systems, or

Does it have to be directly signed by that key, or does it work like the CA system that web browsers use?

> A system that ships with only OEM and Microsoft keys will not boot a generic copy of Linux. [ from the blog post rather than the article ]

Which tells us that either systems will not ship with only those keys, or there will be a simple way to disable this ("Press F2 for setup"), or somebody will be getting sued on antitrust grounds (which maybe would be ignored again in the US, but not the rest of the world) and forced to provide a workaround.

wedesoft• 15 years ago

It certainly won't get easier to install a Linux dual-boot. It is already difficult enough as it is:

* Windows PCs without installation medium

* Windows installation with a full partitition table (four primary partitions)

* (intentionally?) corrupted partition tables

I.e. installing GNU/Linux requires you to resize partitions with a potentially corrupted NTFS file system and/or delete backup partitions. Alternatively the user uses a Windows image file as Linux file system (Wubi) which is slower and a more fragile solution.

nagnatron• 15 years ago

I know I'm speaking through my reality distortion field, but who cares about this?

krschultz• 15 years ago

It won't happen, and if it does happen, it won't matter.

Can you imagine the Anti-Trust problems this would create? Microsoft is still a big fat target for anti-trust lawsuits and this one is pretty blatant.

And if it does happen, while we're waiting for the Justice Department to end it I'm pretty sure the Linux hackers will find a way around it. When there is a will, there is a way.

moontear• 15 years ago

"We will continue to support the legacy BIOS interface, but machines using the UEFI interface will have significantly richer capabilities."

== Will not block Linux or any other OS booting. Secondly anti-trust cases would kill MS if they would block any other OS, so they won't.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/09/20/reengineering-...

mkup• 15 years ago

There was a time when Windows Logo was considered prestigious, respectable and trendy thing.

With such a practice Microsoft is quickly approaching a time when Windows Logo will be perceived like a hot-iron branding of robbers and other criminals in the medieval era.

christkv• 15 years ago

If this makes it into real hardware I expect the EU to reopen their case against Microsoft fairly quickly on anti-competitive grounds. There are to many governmental institutions and businesses dependent on linux for their day to day work for this to go unchallenged.

dhimes• 15 years ago

If the UEFI could be made to handle multiple keys, and allow the owner to enter them into the firmware, then this could work. One more step in the setup but a more secure system overall.

RexRollman• 15 years ago

Why is this being written like it is solely a "linux" problem? It seems to me that it effects every non-Windows operating system.

TallGuyShort• 15 years ago

No one seems to have mentioned the impact this will have on Live systems. I'm frequently called on by Windows users to recover lost data on corrupted systems, which I do using a Live Linux distribution (especially when they have discarded their installation media & access keys, and have no interest in investing money in continuing using Windows if I can give them a free alternative to getting online). How will I be able to do that for people with Windows 8 computers?

I'm sure I'll be able to find unsigned hardware for my personal use, but it's the interoperability that concerns me.

wmf3• 15 years ago

To repair a Windows 8 system, you boot a live Windows 8 PE USB drive.

pointyhat2• 15 years ago

Like I suspected, this entire thread has been turned by zealots into a Microsoft-bashing exercise.

I genuinely dispair for people who spend their entire time platform bashing and don't add something constructive to the discussion or tar and feather a side religiously. It paints a very bad picture of the "startup culture" amongst more established organisations.

ableal• 15 years ago

LWN notice and discussion of "Garrett: UEFI secure booting" at http://lwn.net/Articles/459569/

Windows 8 OEM specs may block Linux booting

Related Stories