5 ms·

A lot of the comments, and some articles regarding the issue pose the idea that Microsoft is trying to restrict users from installing other Operating Systems in

A lot of the comments, and some articles regarding the issue pose the idea that Microsoft is trying to restrict users from installing other Operating Systems in their own machines. I personally doubt that is the case. Microsoft has bigger problems, and I don't think they are trying to block other OSes (especially Linux). Even so, I don't think the "Secure Boot" implementation will get traction. I think, that even though it s a good idea for malware protection, the execution and wide adoption is not that easy. I believe the "Secure boot" thing won't get very far. Regarding the FSF, I won't comment, I think RMS has tainted enough for me.

mattmanser 15y ago
I think you've missed the salient point: if computer makers wish to distribute machines with the Windows 8 compatibility logo, they will have to implement a measure called "Secure Boot." I obviously have no idea how much that little sticker is supposed to be worth in terms of sales in store, but if Dell, say, complies while others do not they can legitimately claim 'only our computers are windows 8 compatible'. MS is targeting the distribution with this, not the end user, so traction is a lot easier to get.
- aespinoza 15y ago
  I think that sticker, if required, will obviously pressure OEM makers to obtain it. I believe Microsoft will not go through with implementing Secure Boot. There is no real benefit. The developers pushing this are trying to make Windows more resistant to malware. Secure Boot is not fail proof though. I think in the end, the cost of implementation and distribution of this will out weight its benefits and kill it.
- srdev 15y ago
  Yes, they'll have to implement Secure Boot if they want the little Windows 8 sticker. There's nothing there that says they can't provide an option to turn it off. All arguments make the assumption that Secure Boot is required to be on at all times and not just on on-by-default option.
  - wmf 15y ago
    Turning off secure boot adds a (scary) step to the process of installing an OS, which will be enough to dissuade some users from trying.
mike_ivanov 15y ago
> I don't think the "Secure Boot" implementation will get traction. Did you read the article? It's not about "traction", it's about having that sticker or not: "to distribute machines with the Windows 8 compatibility logo, they will have to implement a measure called "Secure Boot." > RMS has tainted enough for me. Consequently, Secure Boot is OK :-)
- aespinoza 15y ago
  > Did you read the article? It's not about "traction", it's about having that sticker or not: "to distribute machines with the Windows 8 compatibility logo, they will have to implement a measure called "Secure Boot." Read the article. Windows 8 still a year away (or more). Microsoft right now is shooting ideas in the air. Will this really mean that Windows 8 will force it for real? Who knows. That is exactly what I am saying. I don't think this will get traction enough to get implemented. If it gets implemented, yes, probably it will have to get traction, that sticker will make sure of it. Microsoft right now is far away from releasing Win8, things like this popup every time they are releasing a new version. A lot of them get dropped. I believe this will get dropped. >> RMS has tainted enough for me.Consequently, Secure Boot is OK :-) Nop. Secure Boot is not ok. I just don't trust the FSF any more.
  - loup-vaillant 15y ago
    I'm curious: what could the FSF have possibly done to earn your distrust? Have they ever lied? Have they ever hid their intentions? Have they been factually incorrect on a particular issue? Or did they made predictions that haven't realized? Or did they act like jerks? (This one doesn't count in my book.) What happened? (I'm serious, I'd like to know.)
    - aespinoza 15y ago
      Thinking on an answer, I realized that it is not that I don't trust the FSF, I just don't care much for their actions anymore. Their intentions have been devaluated by the actions and comments of RMS. Everytime RMS gives in to its tendency to destroy more than create, the FSF looses value for me. And this is obviously my opinion. I know a lot of people believe the contrary, and that is ok. Everybody is allowed to have an opinion.

mattmanser 15y ago

I think you've missed the salient point: if computer makers wish to distribute machines with the Windows 8 compatibility logo, they will have to implement a measure called "Secure Boot." I obviously have no idea how much that little sticker is supposed to be worth in terms of sales in store, but if Dell, say, complies while others do not they can legitimately claim 'only our computers are windows 8 compatible'. MS is targeting the distribution with this, not the end user, so traction is a lot easier to get.

aespinoza 15y ago
I think that sticker, if required, will obviously pressure OEM makers to obtain it. I believe Microsoft will not go through with implementing Secure Boot. There is no real benefit. The developers pushing this are trying to make Windows more resistant to malware. Secure Boot is not fail proof though. I think in the end, the cost of implementation and distribution of this will out weight its benefits and kill it.
srdev 15y ago
Yes, they'll have to implement Secure Boot if they want the little Windows 8 sticker. There's nothing there that says they can't provide an option to turn it off. All arguments make the assumption that Secure Boot is required to be on at all times and not just on on-by-default option.
- wmf 15y ago
  Turning off secure boot adds a (scary) step to the process of installing an OS, which will be enough to dissuade some users from trying.

mike_ivanov 15y ago

> I don't think the "Secure Boot" implementation will get traction. Did you read the article? It's not about "traction", it's about having that sticker or not: "to distribute machines with the Windows 8 compatibility logo, they will have to implement a measure called "Secure Boot." > RMS has tainted enough for me. Consequently, Secure Boot is OK :-)

aespinoza 15y ago
> Did you read the article? It's not about "traction", it's about having that sticker or not: "to distribute machines with the Windows 8 compatibility logo, they will have to implement a measure called "Secure Boot." Read the article. Windows 8 still a year away (or more). Microsoft right now is shooting ideas in the air. Will this really mean that Windows 8 will force it for real? Who knows. That is exactly what I am saying. I don't think this will get traction enough to get implemented. If it gets implemented, yes, probably it will have to get traction, that sticker will make sure of it. Microsoft right now is far away from releasing Win8, things like this popup every time they are releasing a new version. A lot of them get dropped. I believe this will get dropped. >> RMS has tainted enough for me.Consequently, Secure Boot is OK :-) Nop. Secure Boot is not ok. I just don't trust the FSF any more.
- loup-vaillant 15y ago
  I'm curious: what could the FSF have possibly done to earn your distrust? Have they ever lied? Have they ever hid their intentions? Have they been factually incorrect on a particular issue? Or did they made predictions that haven't realized? Or did they act like jerks? (This one doesn't count in my book.) What happened? (I'm serious, I'd like to know.)
  - aespinoza 15y ago
    Thinking on an answer, I realized that it is not that I don't trust the FSF, I just don't care much for their actions anymore. Their intentions have been devaluated by the actions and comments of RMS. Everytime RMS gives in to its tendency to destroy more than create, the FSF looses value for me. And this is obviously my opinion. I know a lot of people believe the contrary, and that is ok. Everybody is allowed to have an opinion.