4 ms·
Although I would like to agree with you, I'm not convinced. The reason Ubuntu (and Red Hat) aren't pushing to get their key included in the hardware is clear f
by sounds 14y ago
Although I would like to agree with you, I'm not convinced.
The reason Ubuntu (and Red Hat) aren't pushing to get their key included in the hardware is clear from the article:
"Microsoft's WinQual key, for much the same reasons as Fedora: it's a key that, realistically, more or less every off-the-shelf system is going to have, as it also signs things like option ROMs, and the UEFI specification only allows an image to be signed by a single key."
The Microsoft WinQual key monopoly is there because option ROMs (and other drivers) are only given one slot for a signature. After Microsoft signs the ROM, the manufacturer _can't_ add a Red Hat or Ubuntu signature to the drivers for their hardware.
This means even if you convinced all the manufacturers to include, say, a Ubuntu key, you still couldn't verify option ROMs were secure. Only Microsoft's key would work for that - thus, Microsoft's key will be the only one installed by the manufacturers.
Your next solution - creating unstickered hardware - is not a solution. There are a few manufacturers offering a linux option (Dell, Lenovo), and a few who sell only linux hardware (system76.com). In a UEFI secure boot world, there would be < 1% of hardware that wasn't locked to Microsoft's key, while 99%+ would be locked. I know users are supposed to be able to access a BIOS screen to disable secure boot, but that makes installing Linux much more painful than installing Windows 8. Why cede the advantage to Microsoft?
The best way to fight this, I believe, is to put your time and resources into coreboot.org and the FSF.
- maxerickson 14y agoI'm not arguing that unstickered hardware solves anything, I'm arguing that it is hard to construe the sticker program as anti-competitive. As long as the stickered hardware can boot anything, then it is a reach to say that it is harming anyone (I don't find the confusion and unnecessary difficulty arguments very compelling, people that have difficulty twiddling the bios are going to run into problems anyway). I don't understand the details of the option rom stuff, but my superficial impression is that no other entity is particularly motivated to run a meaningful program for signing such code. And it's still an open question if Microsoft can run such a program and have it end up meaning anything.
- sounds 14y agoI don't have to convince you that "it is harming anyone" (your words). You have to convince me that Microsoft's UEFI Secure Boot requirements aren't a threat to Software Freedom (as defined by the FSF). Otherwise, Microsoft, Secure Boot-enabled laptops, and anything with a Windows 8 sticker will continue to get lots of bad press.
- maxerickson 14y agoThe context of my comment was someone labeling the practice anti-competitive. That's where harm comes into the picture. I'm sure that the stuff will continue to get bad press, the idea of centrally controlled hardware is offensive to a large chunk of the people that bother to think about it.
- beagle3 14y agoAnti-competitive includes future harm. The way bundling IE was found anticompetitive by US and EU courts. Specifically, it is illegal to leverage monopoly in one market to gain entry to others - because history has shown that this is always abused and eventually harms society.
- cooldeal 14y ago>Otherwise, Microsoft, Secure Boot-enabled laptops, and anything with a Windows 8 sticker will continue to get lots of bad press. The iPad and iPhone got loads of bad press about the lockdown, the 30% cut of all in app payments and rejecting things like Android magazine apps and a bunch of other stuff. And Apple still can barely keep up with the demand. I think consumers have been conditioned by iOS not to think about openness.
- Someone 14y agoBy iOS? I do not remember seeing people walk the streets in protest against the closed nature of XBox, PS2, Playstation,…, or the Xerox 9700. If you disagree, please give some proof of consumers (at large, as opposed to small groups, or at least in greater numbers than they do today) thinking of openness before iOS.