10 ms·

Installing Linux on Windows 8 PCs: No easy answers

104 points by tanglesome 14y ago

tjoff 14y ago
Why has this issue resurfaced? What has changed? I thought that the windows 8 certification for x86 required that users should be able to disable secure boot.
- tadfisher 14y ago
  Manufacturers might be satisfying that requirement by providing an unlocked boot image for users to flash themselves.
  - tjoff 14y ago
    Then the problem is fraudulent manufacturers. There can't be any universe in which that isn't a shortsighted and downright ludicrous move. If anything we should be happy for the manufacturers that does that, it means we'd never have to consider them again.
    - mavrc 14y ago
      >Then the problem is fraudulent manufacturers. Or a certification standard that mandated that vendors do something, but was highly nonspecific as to exactly how they were to do it.
      - tjoff 14y ago
        AND a certification standard... This would never be a problem without both fraudulent manufacturers and an unclear certification standard.
tokenizer 14y ago
I find this really stupid on Microsoft's part. I operate a dual boot solely for the purpose of using Windows for gaming. With Steam potentially coming to Linux, I'll just drop Lenovo as my vendor of choice as go with a vendor who supports my OS of choice, Linux.
- kevhsu 14y ago
  Unfortunately you'll still be missing out on lots of games, even with Steam for Linux. Initially, Steam for Linux will only be good for a few Valve titles and indie games.
  - Draiken 14y ago
    But if enough people start giving up from windows since they are using it as a game only OS, game publishers will have to take action. Yes it's a dream, but maybe one day... maybe one day...
    - Metrop0218 14y ago
      I really don't see it happening ever. I have a lot of trouble seeing Linux distros be used by actual everyday consumers. I mean, it'd be cool if it happened, but the quality just isn't there.
- wmf 14y ago
  Which is what you really should have done all along. If you really care about Linux, buy a computer with Linux pre-installed and supported.
monkeyfacebag 14y ago
> Every new PC sold with Windows 8 will be locked up tight with Microsoft's UEFI ... secure boot on Not that I don't agree that there's a potentially dangerous precedent here, but this is omitting a key detail. For x86 computers, MS's certification requires that users can disable secure boot. Of course, this is not true for ARM computers, hence the dangerous precedent.
- cooldeal 14y ago
  I find it strange how people refer to a Windows RT tablet as an "ARM computer", but the iPad, Kindle Fire, Nook and a zillion other Android tablets(most of which have locked bootloaders, hello "Dangerous Precedent"!) are not referred to as ARM PCs. It just shows how the terminology is changed to have a higher impact for an argument.
  - monkeyfacebag 14y ago
    I'd attribute it to the software. iOS and Android are clearly meant to coexist with and not supplant a more traditional OS. To me, the dangerous precedent is that this new ARM computer comes loaded with "Windows", a label which connotes a more traditional OS, yet it can only run apps from MS's app store and cannot be booted into Linux. Yes, this is a slippery slope argument given that MS also provides the x86 version which can do all of those things, but I think the distinction will be lost on the general public.
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      I can't wait to hear all those stories of people who buy a "Windows" RT device and then find out they can't actually run any Windows software on it.
      - wtracy 14y ago
        Microsoft has been through this already with the failed Alpha port of Windows. It should be interesting to see what plans they have to mitigate this.
shawnz 14y ago
Do people still believe this crap? It's not as if OEMs are being forced to make Microsoft the sole CA of machines they sell. The requirement for the logo is that the feature is available. Any OEM who doesn't provide options to enable/disable the feature or adjust trust options is crazy. I mean, come on -- what if your hard drive fails? These are desktop computers we're talking about. It's an open platform. To be honest, I'm very excited for Secure Boot. It, combined with TPMs and disk encryption, will finally allow desktop computers to be a truly secure platform (barring opening up the ICs on the motherboard, anyway).
- lmm 14y ago
  Why would you need to open up the ICs on the motherboard? Just plug in to that "thunderbolt" that's got people so excited, and DMA whatever you need.
  - Daniel_Newby 14y ago
    Surely the Thunderbolt interface has an IO-MMU?
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      From wikipedia: >A number of Intel processors since the introduction of the Nehalem microarchitecture (that is, a number of CPU branded Core i5, Core i7, or later) support VT-d, an IOMMU implementation. This allows the operating system (OS) to isolate a device in its own virtual memory address space (in a manner analogous to the isolation of processes from one another using the MMU). Devices could thus be prevented from having access to unauthorized parts of the memory space. However, this feature isn't generally used other than for its initial purpose of giving guest virtual machines passthrough access to specific host hardware.[citation needed] So.. maybe? Resolving that 'citation needed' would be nice.
- bryanlarsen 14y ago
  It's not as if OEMs are being forced to make Microsoft the sole CA of machines they sell. Here's Fedora's response (Matthew Garret mjg59): "We explored the possibility of producing a Fedora key and encouraging hardware vendors to incorporate it, but turned it down for a couple of reasons. First, while we had a surprisingly positive response from the vendors, there was no realistic chance that we could get all of them to carry it. That would mean going back to the bad old days of scouring compatibility lists before buying hardware, and that's fundamentally user-hostile. Secondly, it would put Fedora in a privileged position. As one of the larger distributions, we have more opportunity to talk to hardware manufacturers than most distributions do. Systems with a Fedora key would boot Fedora fine, but would they boot Mandriva? Arch? Mint? Mepis? Adopting a distribution-specific key and encouraging hardware companies to adopt it would have been hostile to other distributions. We want to compete on merit, not because we have better links to OEMs."
Spoom 14y ago
"Most people today who want to run Linux on a Mac use the Compatibility Support Module (CSM), which provides BIOS emulation on the Mac. This method is messy, doesn't work that well, and I'm quite certain will fail miserably on Secure Boot Windows 8 PCs." Am I missing something here, as I post this from Debian running on my work iMac? All I had to do was install rEFIt ( http://refit.sourceforge.net/ http://refit.sourceforge.net/ ), install Debian, and let rEFIt detect it (I forget if it involved manual configuration, been a while.) I think this is much ado about nothing, especially given that Microsoft seems to be insisting that manufacturers leave in the option to turn off secure boot. I also thought Linux had the capability to boot off of UEFI; is this not true?
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  It depends on the distribution. AFAIK you have to sign each version of the bootloader and for GPL related reasons you cannot do this with GRUB2 so Ubuntu are having to resort back to GRUB1. This means that whilst you may be able to run big "brand name" distributions like Ubuntu or RedHat on a secure boot PC more obscure distros might simply not work at all (unless you turn secure boot off).
  - gizmo686 14y ago
    Actually you are allowed to use grub2. The issue would be if you sell a device with grub2 pre-installed, and no way to install a user version. Also, the other distributions could simply use Ubuntu's signed bootloader (So could rootkits).
- doublextremevil 14y ago
  Is your iMac running Lion? When I upgraded from Snow Leopard, it borked my rEFIt ubuntu partition.
joshlegs 14y ago
I'm still new to the UEFI thing and don't really understand the issue totally ... but would doing something like getting a System32 box (or building your own) and then installing Win8 do the trick? Obviously it still would have Windows code on it, but wouldn't that sidestep the hardware manufacturer issue? or something ...
- wmf 14y ago
  Yes, but bitching about being oppressed is cooler than just buying a Linux PC.
- takluyver 14y ago
  Yes - the requirement is for manufacturers who want to use the Windows logo to indicate that their systems support Windows 8. But many new Linux users start by installing Linux on a PC bought with Windows, so we definitely want to make that as easy as possible.
gvb 14y ago
I bought a $300 eMachines EL1360G-UW11P for a home server to replace my 2001 vintage 800MHz P-III. I installed linux but it wouldn't boot. Major bummer. It wasn't clear that UEFI signing was at fault, but there was no other reason for it to refuse to boot the image. The install went fine right through the reboot. I re-installed linux trying several different things, all unsuccessfully. I also booted a "rescue" image and verified the install looked valid. There was no way to turn off UEFI signing in the BIOS menus. I went to the manufacturer's web site and found they had a "Linux BIOS" image. http://support.gateway.com/us/en/emac/product/default.aspx?tab=5&modelId=4021 http://support.gateway.com/us/en/emac/product/default.aspx?t... I was able to reflash the BIOS with the P01.C1L image, but I had to force it by looking at their "flash.bat" file adding a /X flag to the flash command in there. With the "linux" BIOS image, the board booted linux just fine. Huh. Lessons Learned: * UEFI is a real risk. Most mainstream PCs nowadays boot linux out of the box. I lived through the times when I bought a new PC "at risk" because it might have chips that were not supported by linux. UEFI brings that risk back, but through software, not hardware. Sucks! * The hardware manufactures apparently are getting the "it must run linux" message, even for low end throw-away machines. Yeah! * Reflashing BIOSes, especially when the user has to manually override "self protection" aborts, is not something an unsophisticated user is going to be able to do. Sucks.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  To be fair: downloading a .iso file, burning the image onto a blank disk, rebooting and entering bios setup, setting boot device order , inserting disk and rebooting again, partitioning disks and doing install process isn't something that an unsophisticated user is going to be able to do without significant guidance though. The BIOS flashing does add an extra risk factor though, prepare for many "Linux fucked my PC!" rants from users who screwed up the flashing process.
  - darkstalker 14y ago
    You can skip most of those steps doing a network install with unetbootin, no cds or usb drives needed http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net/
raintrees 14y ago
"Secure Boot retains flaws in its design that will ultimately mandate that Microsoft's key is on every PC (because of core UEFI driver signing)" And if this Microsoft key were to be found being used as part of an exploit, ala the previous Microsoft cert being used to sign Stuxnet? Not that I am encouraging any specific behavior...
wasd 14y ago
There is a very simple way to install Linux on any Windows PC: a VM. I'm not sure why more people don't do it. It gives you all the flexibility and strength of command line while the battery life/drivers/software support of Windows. Its easy to back up, transfer to other PCs, etc...
- nathan_long 14y ago
  It also gives you all the overhead of running two operating systems, and all the expense of purchasing a commercial one to use a free one. I'm not saying it's a bad option, but it does have downsides.
- Wilya 14y ago
  I do this for my laptop (mainly because wireless support on linux still sucks) and it isn't perfect. Performance suffers quite a bit, which matters for low power devices. Plus, the windows layer will come bite you in all its sneaky ways, as usual.
- jwhitlark 14y ago
  This assumes you want windows at all, and all the problems that come with it. Using a slow system that tends to decay as the base of your computing experience isn't something I'm interested in. It would make more sense to have Linux as the base, and windows in a VM.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Accidentally downvoted you, but I fully agree. Most of my computers running Linux are not laptops and don't even have screens/keyboards attached. I can't think of a single reason I would ever want windows on them even as just some sort of ghetto hypervisor.
    - jasomill 14y ago
      Nor can I, but I presume gamers could come up with a few.
    - 14y ago
RexRollman 14y ago
Keeping free OSes off computers in the name of security is the same, to me, as censorship in the name of protecting children: stupid and unworkable.
lifeguard 14y ago
Behold the power of monopoly. edit (lol, microsofties down voting this comment)
- lifeguard 14y ago
  Still abusing it, too: "Microsoft Files Motion in Apple v. Samsung to Hide Patent License Agreement Terms ~pj" As explained in the accompanying declaration of Tanya Moore, Microsoft's General Manager of Outbound Licensing, Exhibits 3A and 3B to the Teece Report contain sensitive confidential and proprietary business information from the Confidential Agreement between Microsoft and Samsung. The Teece Report summarizes sensitive portions of the Confidential Agreement, including the licensed technology, term of the license, royalty rates, and payment information, among other things. (Moore Decl. at ¶¶ 3-4). http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120727084323510 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120727084323510
- freehunter 14y ago
  Behold, the power of oh shit Microsoft doesn't even have a presence in the ARM tablet world, let alone a monopoly.
  - lifeguard 14y ago
    Samsung sells a lot of their hardware with MS software on it and are dependent on favorable licensing terms. This business Samsung does with them overshadows all their other partners in terms of revenue.
    - freehunter 14y ago
      And that's relevant to Microsoft ARM tablets how? x86 devices don't have locked bootloaders, and Windows ARM tablets don't exist, so the reason you were downvoted isn't Microsoft fanboys, it's that you're wrong and seemingly quite proud to be so.
aubergene 14y ago
So, what will happen with the millions of servers that run Linux? Also I would think the EU wouldn't be happy to see Microsoft lock their operating system on each laptop. Obviously some solution will be found. On a related note, why don't Canonical start selling their own hardware? Most laptops are pretty crappy, I'm sure they could do better and having official support would be great.
- freehunter 14y ago
  System76 is pretty close to being the official Ubuntu vendor. Full support, custom hardware, and Canonical's nod of approval. They're the Lenovo (et al) of the Ubuntu world.
csense 14y ago
There should be an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. "Secure boot" creates barriers to entry for operating system innovators. I don't see how this isn't an abuse of monopoly power to tighten the screws on a market threatened by disruptive competition; if antitrust laws can't help us here, I don't know why we even bother to have them. Does anyone know the process in the USA for lodging antitrust complaints with the government?
- wmf 14y ago
  Microsoft is willing to sign your bootloader as long as you promise not to boot any malware.
- tzs 14y ago
  Other operating system vendors are free to arrange with hardware manufacturers to include certificates for their operating systems. It's not an antitrust issue that other OS vendors were not able to get their act together in order to do so. On top of that, they have the option of piggybacking on Microsoft's certificate. Microsoft will even subsidize the cost of getting a certificate from Verisign to allow that. Finally, Microsoft is using their market power to force OEMs of x86 computers to include a way for users to disable Secure Boot and to add new certificates.
  - Tuna-Fish 14y ago
    > Other operating system vendors are free to arrange with hardware manufacturers to include certificates for their operating systems. It's not an antitrust issue that other OS vendors were not able to get their act together in order to do so. For a lot of users, merely having the option of signing their images simply won't be good enough. Unless the signing keys are available to everyone, you cannot boot a self-compiled kernel on a secure boot system.
    - tzs 14y ago
      If you want to compile your own kernels and boot them without disabling Secure Boot, make your own self-signed certificate, add that to the certificate list the firmware maintains, and self-sign your kernel with your certificate.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
drhowarddrfine 14y ago
I filed a complaint with the US Justice Department anti-trust division. And you should, too: http://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.html http://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.html It's easy enough but they are all too aware of it as the response to my complaint came from the same attorney who ran the anti-trust filings against Microsoft the last time. I also emailed my Congressman who also replied in kind. This Microsoft action is the talk of the town gathered from his knowing response.

104 points by tanglesome 14y ago

tjoff 14y ago

Why has this issue resurfaced? What has changed? I thought that the windows 8 certification for x86 required that users should be able to disable secure boot.

tadfisher 14y ago
Manufacturers might be satisfying that requirement by providing an unlocked boot image for users to flash themselves.
- tjoff 14y ago
  Then the problem is fraudulent manufacturers. There can't be any universe in which that isn't a shortsighted and downright ludicrous move. If anything we should be happy for the manufacturers that does that, it means we'd never have to consider them again.
  - mavrc 14y ago
    >Then the problem is fraudulent manufacturers. Or a certification standard that mandated that vendors do something, but was highly nonspecific as to exactly how they were to do it.
    - tjoff 14y ago
      AND a certification standard... This would never be a problem without both fraudulent manufacturers and an unclear certification standard.

tokenizer 14y ago

I find this really stupid on Microsoft's part. I operate a dual boot solely for the purpose of using Windows for gaming. With Steam potentially coming to Linux, I'll just drop Lenovo as my vendor of choice as go with a vendor who supports my OS of choice, Linux.

kevhsu 14y ago
Unfortunately you'll still be missing out on lots of games, even with Steam for Linux. Initially, Steam for Linux will only be good for a few Valve titles and indie games.
- Draiken 14y ago
  But if enough people start giving up from windows since they are using it as a game only OS, game publishers will have to take action. Yes it's a dream, but maybe one day... maybe one day...
  - Metrop0218 14y ago
    I really don't see it happening ever. I have a lot of trouble seeing Linux distros be used by actual everyday consumers. I mean, it'd be cool if it happened, but the quality just isn't there.
wmf 14y ago
Which is what you really should have done all along. If you really care about Linux, buy a computer with Linux pre-installed and supported.

monkeyfacebag 14y ago

> Every new PC sold with Windows 8 will be locked up tight with Microsoft's UEFI ... secure boot on Not that I don't agree that there's a potentially dangerous precedent here, but this is omitting a key detail. For x86 computers, MS's certification requires that users can disable secure boot. Of course, this is not true for ARM computers, hence the dangerous precedent.

cooldeal 14y ago
I find it strange how people refer to a Windows RT tablet as an "ARM computer", but the iPad, Kindle Fire, Nook and a zillion other Android tablets(most of which have locked bootloaders, hello "Dangerous Precedent"!) are not referred to as ARM PCs. It just shows how the terminology is changed to have a higher impact for an argument.
- monkeyfacebag 14y ago
  I'd attribute it to the software. iOS and Android are clearly meant to coexist with and not supplant a more traditional OS. To me, the dangerous precedent is that this new ARM computer comes loaded with "Windows", a label which connotes a more traditional OS, yet it can only run apps from MS's app store and cannot be booted into Linux. Yes, this is a slippery slope argument given that MS also provides the x86 version which can do all of those things, but I think the distinction will be lost on the general public.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    I can't wait to hear all those stories of people who buy a "Windows" RT device and then find out they can't actually run any Windows software on it.
    - wtracy 14y ago
      Microsoft has been through this already with the failed Alpha port of Windows. It should be interesting to see what plans they have to mitigate this.

shawnz 14y ago

Do people still believe this crap? It's not as if OEMs are being forced to make Microsoft the sole CA of machines they sell. The requirement for the logo is that the feature is available. Any OEM who doesn't provide options to enable/disable the feature or adjust trust options is crazy. I mean, come on -- what if your hard drive fails? These are desktop computers we're talking about. It's an open platform. To be honest, I'm very excited for Secure Boot. It, combined with TPMs and disk encryption, will finally allow desktop computers to be a truly secure platform (barring opening up the ICs on the motherboard, anyway).

lmm 14y ago
Why would you need to open up the ICs on the motherboard? Just plug in to that "thunderbolt" that's got people so excited, and DMA whatever you need.
- Daniel_Newby 14y ago
  Surely the Thunderbolt interface has an IO-MMU?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    From wikipedia: >A number of Intel processors since the introduction of the Nehalem microarchitecture (that is, a number of CPU branded Core i5, Core i7, or later) support VT-d, an IOMMU implementation. This allows the operating system (OS) to isolate a device in its own virtual memory address space (in a manner analogous to the isolation of processes from one another using the MMU). Devices could thus be prevented from having access to unauthorized parts of the memory space. However, this feature isn't generally used other than for its initial purpose of giving guest virtual machines passthrough access to specific host hardware.[citation needed] So.. maybe? Resolving that 'citation needed' would be nice.
bryanlarsen 14y ago
It's not as if OEMs are being forced to make Microsoft the sole CA of machines they sell. Here's Fedora's response (Matthew Garret mjg59): "We explored the possibility of producing a Fedora key and encouraging hardware vendors to incorporate it, but turned it down for a couple of reasons. First, while we had a surprisingly positive response from the vendors, there was no realistic chance that we could get all of them to carry it. That would mean going back to the bad old days of scouring compatibility lists before buying hardware, and that's fundamentally user-hostile. Secondly, it would put Fedora in a privileged position. As one of the larger distributions, we have more opportunity to talk to hardware manufacturers than most distributions do. Systems with a Fedora key would boot Fedora fine, but would they boot Mandriva? Arch? Mint? Mepis? Adopting a distribution-specific key and encouraging hardware companies to adopt it would have been hostile to other distributions. We want to compete on merit, not because we have better links to OEMs."

Spoom 14y ago

"Most people today who want to run Linux on a Mac use the Compatibility Support Module (CSM), which provides BIOS emulation on the Mac. This method is messy, doesn't work that well, and I'm quite certain will fail miserably on Secure Boot Windows 8 PCs." Am I missing something here, as I post this from Debian running on my work iMac? All I had to do was install rEFIt ( http://refit.sourceforge.net/ http://refit.sourceforge.net/ ), install Debian, and let rEFIt detect it (I forget if it involved manual configuration, been a while.) I think this is much ado about nothing, especially given that Microsoft seems to be insisting that manufacturers leave in the option to turn off secure boot. I also thought Linux had the capability to boot off of UEFI; is this not true?

jiggy2011 14y ago
It depends on the distribution. AFAIK you have to sign each version of the bootloader and for GPL related reasons you cannot do this with GRUB2 so Ubuntu are having to resort back to GRUB1. This means that whilst you may be able to run big "brand name" distributions like Ubuntu or RedHat on a secure boot PC more obscure distros might simply not work at all (unless you turn secure boot off).
- gizmo686 14y ago
  Actually you are allowed to use grub2. The issue would be if you sell a device with grub2 pre-installed, and no way to install a user version. Also, the other distributions could simply use Ubuntu's signed bootloader (So could rootkits).
doublextremevil 14y ago
Is your iMac running Lion? When I upgraded from Snow Leopard, it borked my rEFIt ubuntu partition.

joshlegs 14y ago

I'm still new to the UEFI thing and don't really understand the issue totally ... but would doing something like getting a System32 box (or building your own) and then installing Win8 do the trick? Obviously it still would have Windows code on it, but wouldn't that sidestep the hardware manufacturer issue? or something ...

wmf 14y ago
Yes, but bitching about being oppressed is cooler than just buying a Linux PC.
takluyver 14y ago
Yes - the requirement is for manufacturers who want to use the Windows logo to indicate that their systems support Windows 8. But many new Linux users start by installing Linux on a PC bought with Windows, so we definitely want to make that as easy as possible.

gvb 14y ago

I bought a $300 eMachines EL1360G-UW11P for a home server to replace my 2001 vintage 800MHz P-III. I installed linux but it wouldn't boot. Major bummer. It wasn't clear that UEFI signing was at fault, but there was no other reason for it to refuse to boot the image. The install went fine right through the reboot. I re-installed linux trying several different things, all unsuccessfully. I also booted a "rescue" image and verified the install looked valid. There was no way to turn off UEFI signing in the BIOS menus. I went to the manufacturer's web site and found they had a "Linux BIOS" image. http://support.gateway.com/us/en/emac/product/default.aspx?tab=5&modelId=4021 http://support.gateway.com/us/en/emac/product/default.aspx?t... I was able to reflash the BIOS with the P01.C1L image, but I had to force it by looking at their "flash.bat" file adding a /X flag to the flash command in there. With the "linux" BIOS image, the board booted linux just fine. Huh. Lessons Learned: * UEFI is a real risk. Most mainstream PCs nowadays boot linux out of the box. I lived through the times when I bought a new PC "at risk" because it might have chips that were not supported by linux. UEFI brings that risk back, but through software, not hardware. Sucks! * The hardware manufactures apparently are getting the "it must run linux" message, even for low end throw-away machines. Yeah! * Reflashing BIOSes, especially when the user has to manually override "self protection" aborts, is not something an unsophisticated user is going to be able to do. Sucks.

jiggy2011 14y ago
To be fair: downloading a .iso file, burning the image onto a blank disk, rebooting and entering bios setup, setting boot device order , inserting disk and rebooting again, partitioning disks and doing install process isn't something that an unsophisticated user is going to be able to do without significant guidance though. The BIOS flashing does add an extra risk factor though, prepare for many "Linux fucked my PC!" rants from users who screwed up the flashing process.
- darkstalker 14y ago
  You can skip most of those steps doing a network install with unetbootin, no cds or usb drives needed http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net/

raintrees 14y ago

"Secure Boot retains flaws in its design that will ultimately mandate that Microsoft's key is on every PC (because of core UEFI driver signing)" And if this Microsoft key were to be found being used as part of an exploit, ala the previous Microsoft cert being used to sign Stuxnet? Not that I am encouraging any specific behavior...

wasd 14y ago

There is a very simple way to install Linux on any Windows PC: a VM. I'm not sure why more people don't do it. It gives you all the flexibility and strength of command line while the battery life/drivers/software support of Windows. Its easy to back up, transfer to other PCs, etc...

nathan_long 14y ago
It also gives you all the overhead of running two operating systems, and all the expense of purchasing a commercial one to use a free one. I'm not saying it's a bad option, but it does have downsides.
Wilya 14y ago
I do this for my laptop (mainly because wireless support on linux still sucks) and it isn't perfect. Performance suffers quite a bit, which matters for low power devices. Plus, the windows layer will come bite you in all its sneaky ways, as usual.
jwhitlark 14y ago
This assumes you want windows at all, and all the problems that come with it. Using a slow system that tends to decay as the base of your computing experience isn't something I'm interested in. It would make more sense to have Linux as the base, and windows in a VM.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Accidentally downvoted you, but I fully agree. Most of my computers running Linux are not laptops and don't even have screens/keyboards attached. I can't think of a single reason I would ever want windows on them even as just some sort of ghetto hypervisor.
  - jasomill 14y ago
    Nor can I, but I presume gamers could come up with a few.
  - 14y ago

RexRollman 14y ago

Keeping free OSes off computers in the name of security is the same, to me, as censorship in the name of protecting children: stupid and unworkable.

lifeguard 14y ago

Behold the power of monopoly. edit (lol, microsofties down voting this comment)

lifeguard 14y ago
Still abusing it, too: "Microsoft Files Motion in Apple v. Samsung to Hide Patent License Agreement Terms ~pj" As explained in the accompanying declaration of Tanya Moore, Microsoft's General Manager of Outbound Licensing, Exhibits 3A and 3B to the Teece Report contain sensitive confidential and proprietary business information from the Confidential Agreement between Microsoft and Samsung. The Teece Report summarizes sensitive portions of the Confidential Agreement, including the licensed technology, term of the license, royalty rates, and payment information, among other things. (Moore Decl. at ¶¶ 3-4). http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120727084323510 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120727084323510
freehunter 14y ago
Behold, the power of oh shit Microsoft doesn't even have a presence in the ARM tablet world, let alone a monopoly.
- lifeguard 14y ago
  Samsung sells a lot of their hardware with MS software on it and are dependent on favorable licensing terms. This business Samsung does with them overshadows all their other partners in terms of revenue.
  - freehunter 14y ago
    And that's relevant to Microsoft ARM tablets how? x86 devices don't have locked bootloaders, and Windows ARM tablets don't exist, so the reason you were downvoted isn't Microsoft fanboys, it's that you're wrong and seemingly quite proud to be so.

aubergene 14y ago

So, what will happen with the millions of servers that run Linux? Also I would think the EU wouldn't be happy to see Microsoft lock their operating system on each laptop. Obviously some solution will be found. On a related note, why don't Canonical start selling their own hardware? Most laptops are pretty crappy, I'm sure they could do better and having official support would be great.

freehunter 14y ago
System76 is pretty close to being the official Ubuntu vendor. Full support, custom hardware, and Canonical's nod of approval. They're the Lenovo (et al) of the Ubuntu world.

csense 14y ago

There should be an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. "Secure boot" creates barriers to entry for operating system innovators. I don't see how this isn't an abuse of monopoly power to tighten the screws on a market threatened by disruptive competition; if antitrust laws can't help us here, I don't know why we even bother to have them. Does anyone know the process in the USA for lodging antitrust complaints with the government?

wmf 14y ago
Microsoft is willing to sign your bootloader as long as you promise not to boot any malware.
tzs 14y ago
Other operating system vendors are free to arrange with hardware manufacturers to include certificates for their operating systems. It's not an antitrust issue that other OS vendors were not able to get their act together in order to do so. On top of that, they have the option of piggybacking on Microsoft's certificate. Microsoft will even subsidize the cost of getting a certificate from Verisign to allow that. Finally, Microsoft is using their market power to force OEMs of x86 computers to include a way for users to disable Secure Boot and to add new certificates.
- Tuna-Fish 14y ago
  > Other operating system vendors are free to arrange with hardware manufacturers to include certificates for their operating systems. It's not an antitrust issue that other OS vendors were not able to get their act together in order to do so. For a lot of users, merely having the option of signing their images simply won't be good enough. Unless the signing keys are available to everyone, you cannot boot a self-compiled kernel on a secure boot system.
  - tzs 14y ago
    If you want to compile your own kernels and boot them without disabling Secure Boot, make your own self-signed certificate, add that to the certificate list the firmware maintains, and self-sign your kernel with your certificate.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

drhowarddrfine 14y ago

I filed a complaint with the US Justice Department anti-trust division. And you should, too: http://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.html http://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.html It's easy enough but they are all too aware of it as the response to my complaint came from the same attorney who ran the anti-trust filings against Microsoft the last time. I also emailed my Congressman who also replied in kind. This Microsoft action is the talk of the town gathered from his knowing response.