4 ms·

I didn't know one could run Linux on ARM64/AArch64 Windows laptops. I assumed they were "Windows Only" at a firmware level (Secure Boot forced on without any ab

I didn't know one could run Linux on ARM64/AArch64 Windows laptops. I assumed they were "Windows Only" at a firmware level (Secure Boot forced on without any ability to opt-out or some form of signed MS only bootloader support) Between this and Marcan42 on Twitter working on Linux for M1 Macs, I'm hopeful that ARM64 Linux devices will slowly start to creep in further

gsnedders 6y ago
The MS requirements for Windows require secure-boot enabled by default and only with the MS key. It is optional whether OEMs allow secure-boot to be disabled and/or set to a mode where other signing keys can be added.
- my123 6y ago
  In practice, on both x86_64 and arm64, no OEM including Microsoft themselves took the option to have always-on Secure Boot. (32-bit Arm was another story, but that era is long since dead) EDIT: think that this was worded badly, modified it.
  - xenocratus 6y ago
    I see a bunch of recent tutorials when searching for how to do this, e.g. for Acer Windows 10 laptops: https://medium.com/@acerrepaircenter/how-to-enable-or-disable-secure-boot-on-acer-laptop-c336593f2a26 https://medium.com/@acerrepaircenter/how-to-enable-or-disabl... Microsoft also seems quite positive about the option being there: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/manufacture/desktop/disabling-secure-boot https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/manufactur... Edit: fair enough, sounds about right!
sdflhasjd 6y ago
Because Windows on Arm requires UEFI, it's much the same as installing Linux on an x86 box.
- selfhoster11 6y ago
  There have been discussions that ARM based machines will have UEFI forced to enabled Secure Boot with a key that doesn't let Linux bootloaders run, so this would not be the same. x86 laptops and PCs generally allow replacing the boot key, or disabling Secure Boot altogether.
  - als0 6y ago
    You're thinking of 32-bit ARM machines. The 64-bit ARM software story is very different and I have yet to find an arm64 laptop that can't boot a different OS.
mhh__ 6y ago
Someone will almost definitely get Linux running on the Mac, but only because of talented people working on it for free (which is both a shame and slightly concerning given how some people seem to be completely suckered in by Apple)
- freehunter 6y ago
  >only because of talented people working on it for free That’s basically the definition of Linux. That’s not Apple’s fault.
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    > That’s basically the definition of Linux. A common misconception. Something like 90+% of Linux commits come from people whose job is writing that code.
    - freehunter 6y ago
      In which case the people getting Linux running on an M1 likely aren't working for free. Either way it's not a very good criticism.
PragmaticPulp 6y ago
When secure boot started to go mainstream there was a lot of FUD that it was really just a mechanism to lock out alternative OSes. The reality is that hardware manufactures do not care what OS you run, as long as it doesn’t result in costly hardware returns or endless support calls. This is why hardware typically has options to disable OS-specific. secure boot, but it requires some technical steps that average users won’t accidentally stumble upon. The M1 macs were never locked down, either. Apple has said that Microsoft can make Windows builds for them if they’d like. Linux on M1 macs is only a matter of time. Secure boot is a net win for everyone. Having an option to disable it lets the 0.01% of people who want to run Linux use the hardware too.
- officeplant 6y ago
  From what I've been made to understand by friends at Apple all they have to do is figure out iBoot. They suspect we'll have linux on M1 macs within the next 6 months.
- ryukafalz 6y ago
  >When secure boot started to go mainstream there was a lot of FUD that it was really just a mechanism to lock out alternative OSes. It wasn't just FUD. Microsoft has changed their tune on this over the years, but it used to be that their certification requirements mandated that users could not disable secure boot on ARM devices: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/01/microsoft-mandating-secure-boot-on-arm-making-linux-installs-difficult/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/01/micro... If that were still their policy today, it would make projects like this nearly impossible.
- vetinari 6y ago
  Except it was not FUD: see WinRT machines, which used Secure Boot and didn't allow neither MOK enrollment nor disabling Secure Boot.

gsnedders 6y ago

The MS requirements for Windows require secure-boot enabled by default and only with the MS key. It is optional whether OEMs allow secure-boot to be disabled and/or set to a mode where other signing keys can be added.

my123 6y ago
In practice, on both x86_64 and arm64, no OEM including Microsoft themselves took the option to have always-on Secure Boot. (32-bit Arm was another story, but that era is long since dead) EDIT: think that this was worded badly, modified it.
- xenocratus 6y ago
  I see a bunch of recent tutorials when searching for how to do this, e.g. for Acer Windows 10 laptops: https://medium.com/@acerrepaircenter/how-to-enable-or-disable-secure-boot-on-acer-laptop-c336593f2a26 https://medium.com/@acerrepaircenter/how-to-enable-or-disabl... Microsoft also seems quite positive about the option being there: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/manufacture/desktop/disabling-secure-boot https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/manufactur... Edit: fair enough, sounds about right!

sdflhasjd 6y ago

Because Windows on Arm requires UEFI, it's much the same as installing Linux on an x86 box.

selfhoster11 6y ago
There have been discussions that ARM based machines will have UEFI forced to enabled Secure Boot with a key that doesn't let Linux bootloaders run, so this would not be the same. x86 laptops and PCs generally allow replacing the boot key, or disabling Secure Boot altogether.
- als0 6y ago
  You're thinking of 32-bit ARM machines. The 64-bit ARM software story is very different and I have yet to find an arm64 laptop that can't boot a different OS.

mhh__ 6y ago

Someone will almost definitely get Linux running on the Mac, but only because of talented people working on it for free (which is both a shame and slightly concerning given how some people seem to be completely suckered in by Apple)

freehunter 6y ago
>only because of talented people working on it for free That’s basically the definition of Linux. That’s not Apple’s fault.
- londons_explore 6y ago
  > That’s basically the definition of Linux. A common misconception. Something like 90+% of Linux commits come from people whose job is writing that code.
  - freehunter 6y ago
    In which case the people getting Linux running on an M1 likely aren't working for free. Either way it's not a very good criticism.

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

When secure boot started to go mainstream there was a lot of FUD that it was really just a mechanism to lock out alternative OSes. The reality is that hardware manufactures do not care what OS you run, as long as it doesn’t result in costly hardware returns or endless support calls. This is why hardware typically has options to disable OS-specific. secure boot, but it requires some technical steps that average users won’t accidentally stumble upon. The M1 macs were never locked down, either. Apple has said that Microsoft can make Windows builds for them if they’d like. Linux on M1 macs is only a matter of time. Secure boot is a net win for everyone. Having an option to disable it lets the 0.01% of people who want to run Linux use the hardware too.

officeplant 6y ago
From what I've been made to understand by friends at Apple all they have to do is figure out iBoot. They suspect we'll have linux on M1 macs within the next 6 months.
ryukafalz 6y ago
>When secure boot started to go mainstream there was a lot of FUD that it was really just a mechanism to lock out alternative OSes. It wasn't just FUD. Microsoft has changed their tune on this over the years, but it used to be that their certification requirements mandated that users could not disable secure boot on ARM devices: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/01/microsoft-mandating-secure-boot-on-arm-making-linux-installs-difficult/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/01/micro... If that were still their policy today, it would make projects like this nearly impossible.
vetinari 6y ago
Except it was not FUD: see WinRT machines, which used Secure Boot and didn't allow neither MOK enrollment nor disabling Secure Boot.