3 ms·

> This was always the case ever since secure boot launched and any OS that didn't have it's first stage bootloader signed by Microsoft could not boot. Even To t

> This was always the case ever since secure boot launched and any OS that didn't have it's first stage bootloader signed by Microsoft could not boot. Even To this day, to install arch or puppy on my XPS i had to disable secure boot. Ubuntu and other major distros are fine here though but this gate keeping doesn't make it ok in my book. But this is kind of a circular problem, isn't it? If everyone's bootloader is signed and recognized by every Secure Boot implementation, then signing is useless since it doesn't afford discrimination between "known good" and "dubious" bootloaders. I'm not familiar with XPS computers, but to me what's important, as another sibling says, is that the user be able to load their custom keys with which they sign their own bootloader. This is how I run Arch on my HP computers. This way, I can be reasonably sure that when I boot my arch linux, it's actually mine, and not some random live medium based of arch's (or whoever's) install disk that will sniff my passwords or whatever. To me, this is what SecureBoot is supposed to offer, and I don't see how you would implement this if you could easily get anything signed and accepted by most PCs.

ChuckNorris89 5y ago
>to me what's important, as another sibling says, is that the user be able to load their custom keys with which they sign their own bootloader. This is how I run Arch on my HP computers. Like I said above, this and stuff like management engine and TPM makes perfect sense in the enterprise environment where the owner of the device (the employer) is different than the user (the employee), so IT needs to strictly control what's running on the devices they trust on their infrastructure, but why should we expect home users to have to sign bootloders to use whatever software they want as they're both the users and the owners of the devices and the network infrastructure in their homes?
- vladvasiliu 5y ago
  I agree that the process could be more straight-forward, especially as, from what I read, some computers may need some coaxing into changing the keys. But the thing is that, like it or not, most people simply don't care enough, so they'll just use Windows. I remember a while ago, when there were many live CD-based distros and there was no such thing as SecureBoot, people wouldn't even be curious to give Linux a spin. All it would have taken was to pop a CD in the drive and boot up. To paraphrase another commenter, I think many people feel the same way about their PC as their washing machine: just another appliance. Of course, lock-down platforms don't help instill curiosity in people... So you get, roughly-speaking, two populations: those who care and those who don't. And usually, those who do care are curious enough to follow a few simple steps to disable SecureBoot for the installation and then set up their own signing process. But I stand by what I said earlier: the process cannot be fully automatic, or it defeats the purpose. But I do think that willingly making it a pain is wrong.

ChuckNorris89 5y ago

>to me what's important, as another sibling says, is that the user be able to load their custom keys with which they sign their own bootloader. This is how I run Arch on my HP computers. Like I said above, this and stuff like management engine and TPM makes perfect sense in the enterprise environment where the owner of the device (the employer) is different than the user (the employee), so IT needs to strictly control what's running on the devices they trust on their infrastructure, but why should we expect home users to have to sign bootloders to use whatever software they want as they're both the users and the owners of the devices and the network infrastructure in their homes?

vladvasiliu 5y ago
I agree that the process could be more straight-forward, especially as, from what I read, some computers may need some coaxing into changing the keys. But the thing is that, like it or not, most people simply don't care enough, so they'll just use Windows. I remember a while ago, when there were many live CD-based distros and there was no such thing as SecureBoot, people wouldn't even be curious to give Linux a spin. All it would have taken was to pop a CD in the drive and boot up. To paraphrase another commenter, I think many people feel the same way about their PC as their washing machine: just another appliance. Of course, lock-down platforms don't help instill curiosity in people... So you get, roughly-speaking, two populations: those who care and those who don't. And usually, those who do care are curious enough to follow a few simple steps to disable SecureBoot for the installation and then set up their own signing process. But I stand by what I said earlier: the process cannot be fully automatic, or it defeats the purpose. But I do think that willingly making it a pain is wrong.