3 ms·

If you can't boot Windows 11 without having secure boot turned on, I guess I'll have to skip this Windows version for the first time in decades. I've always bee

If you can't boot Windows 11 without having secure boot turned on, I guess I'll have to skip this Windows version for the first time in decades. I've always been an early adopter for new Windows versions, but I really can't be bothered with signing my damn Linux kernels just to boot Windows every once in a while.

blibble 5y ago
all large distros are using shim which supports secure boot you can also enroll your own key relatively easily using mokutil if you're building your own kernels it's one command to sign them (sbsign)
amluto 5y ago
Citation needed. The MS link appears to say that you need UEFI that is Secure Boot capable. That includes most implementations.
- Trung0246 5y ago
  Is enabling SecureBoot would wipe your C:\ drive? I'm too afraid that I'll have to reinstall and configure everything again.
  - amluto 5y ago
    I know relatively little about Windows, but toggling Secure Boot by itself should have no such effect. Secure Boot is a firmware policy that affects what OSes are permitted to boot and a few other boot-time things. It has essentially no relation to your disk. If you have Bitlocker enabled, all bets are off. Make sure you have a recovery key set up.
xwolfi 5y ago
Why wouldnt you want secure boot as well? I signed linux and it's just fine, debian does it transparently now.
- Bancakes 5y ago
  Why would you want SB+TPM? It's called TPM 2 because only 2 pieces of software support it. Lol. I already know where microsoft is going with this - Xbox-like DRM. In a few years they'll probably release pci-e based "security devices" with full DMA privileges, too.
- Snetry 5y ago
  Because doing kernel dev and constantly having to resign modules is more tedious than its worth
- qalmakka 5y ago
  Because it's a hassle, and I really don't care about that. Given that I'd have to go through the hassle of signing my own kernels just to get Windows to boot once a week, I really don't get why I should do that in the first place. There's no way Windows _NEEDS_ to be signed to boot. Even macOS doesn't complain that much when booted without Secure Boot. Perhaps someone will find a way to cheat Windows about SecureBoot or TPM by using OpenCore, like the Hackintosh community has been doing for a long time.
ozfive 5y ago
You could also just run Win 11 in a VM and emulate TPM in software. ;)

blibble 5y ago

all large distros are using shim which supports secure boot you can also enroll your own key relatively easily using mokutil if you're building your own kernels it's one command to sign them (sbsign)

amluto 5y ago

Citation needed. The MS link appears to say that you need UEFI that is Secure Boot capable. That includes most implementations.

Trung0246 5y ago
Is enabling SecureBoot would wipe your C:\ drive? I'm too afraid that I'll have to reinstall and configure everything again.
- amluto 5y ago
  I know relatively little about Windows, but toggling Secure Boot by itself should have no such effect. Secure Boot is a firmware policy that affects what OSes are permitted to boot and a few other boot-time things. It has essentially no relation to your disk. If you have Bitlocker enabled, all bets are off. Make sure you have a recovery key set up.

xwolfi 5y ago

Why wouldnt you want secure boot as well? I signed linux and it's just fine, debian does it transparently now.

Bancakes 5y ago
Why would you want SB+TPM? It's called TPM 2 because only 2 pieces of software support it. Lol. I already know where microsoft is going with this - Xbox-like DRM. In a few years they'll probably release pci-e based "security devices" with full DMA privileges, too.
Snetry 5y ago
Because doing kernel dev and constantly having to resign modules is more tedious than its worth
qalmakka 5y ago
Because it's a hassle, and I really don't care about that. Given that I'd have to go through the hassle of signing my own kernels just to get Windows to boot once a week, I really don't get why I should do that in the first place. There's no way Windows _NEEDS_ to be signed to boot. Even macOS doesn't complain that much when booted without Secure Boot. Perhaps someone will find a way to cheat Windows about SecureBoot or TPM by using OpenCore, like the Hackintosh community has been doing for a long time.

ozfive 5y ago

You could also just run Win 11 in a VM and emulate TPM in software. ;)