5 ms·

This whole UEFI secure boot thing is a deliberate attempt to lock out competing third party OSs. I'm surprised there haven't been antitrust inquiries in the US

by kylec 14y ago

This whole UEFI secure boot thing is a deliberate attempt to lock out competing third party OSs. I'm surprised there haven't been antitrust inquiries in the US or EU about it.

daeken 14y ago
UEFI Secure Boot. Not UEFI. Two very different things; it's a shame they're conflated so frequently. One is a sane way to bootstrap a system, the other is a lockdown mechanism.
- kylec 14y ago
  Noted and corrected, thanks.
brudgers 14y ago
This is a mischaracterization. UEFI secure boot is not required to run Windows 8. It is required to slap a Windows 8 logo on a new machine. That is a decision made by hardware vendors, not Microsoft. Since it is hard to imagine a serious advertising campaign based around a competitor's lack of such logos, such decisions reflect the desktop Linux market. I suspect that hardware vendors are happy to make desktop Linux harder to install because I vividly imagine indignant support calls from novice Linux installers adopting FOSS as an ideology.
- Zr40 14y ago
  To be precise, having an optional secure boot is required for the Windows logo certification. If it cannot be disabled, no logo certification. See "Windows Hardware Certification Requirements for Client and Server Systems" [1], requirement "System.Fundamentals.Firmware.UEFISecureBoot", items 17 and 18. [1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/jj128256.aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/jj1...
  - beatgammit 14y ago
    From your link: > On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup. To be more precise, this is only true for non-ARM systems. This is evil, since it's entirely possible to have an ARM desktop/laptop, and I really hope there's some kind of anti-trust legislation here. At least Apple offers a way to boot into an alternative OS, even though it is still a bit locked down.
    - brudgers 14y ago
      What way is offered by Apple to boot other OS's on their ARM devices such as iPads, iPods, and iPhones?
- lunarscape 14y ago
  " such decisions reflect the desktop Linux market." Agreed. Such decisions reflect Microsoft's unrivaled power to strongarm cash-strapped and desperate vendors into whatever schemes they choose. I hope the EU is watching.
Zr40 14y ago
Microsoft currently requires non-ARM PCs supporting Secure Boot to have a user-accessible option to disable Secure Boot in order to obtain logo certification. Even if you leave it enabled, there are several options to boot a non-Windows OS: http://www.rodsbooks.com/efi-bootloaders/secureboot.html http://www.rodsbooks.com/efi-bootloaders/secureboot.html

by kylec 14y ago

This whole UEFI secure boot thing is a deliberate attempt to lock out competing third party OSs. I'm surprised there haven't been antitrust inquiries in the US or EU about it.

daeken 14y ago

UEFI Secure Boot. Not UEFI. Two very different things; it's a shame they're conflated so frequently. One is a sane way to bootstrap a system, the other is a lockdown mechanism.

kylec 14y ago
Noted and corrected, thanks.

brudgers 14y ago

This is a mischaracterization. UEFI secure boot is not required to run Windows 8. It is required to slap a Windows 8 logo on a new machine. That is a decision made by hardware vendors, not Microsoft. Since it is hard to imagine a serious advertising campaign based around a competitor's lack of such logos, such decisions reflect the desktop Linux market. I suspect that hardware vendors are happy to make desktop Linux harder to install because I vividly imagine indignant support calls from novice Linux installers adopting FOSS as an ideology.

Zr40 14y ago
To be precise, having an optional secure boot is required for the Windows logo certification. If it cannot be disabled, no logo certification. See "Windows Hardware Certification Requirements for Client and Server Systems" [1], requirement "System.Fundamentals.Firmware.UEFISecureBoot", items 17 and 18. [1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/jj128256.aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/jj1...
- beatgammit 14y ago
  From your link: > On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup. To be more precise, this is only true for non-ARM systems. This is evil, since it's entirely possible to have an ARM desktop/laptop, and I really hope there's some kind of anti-trust legislation here. At least Apple offers a way to boot into an alternative OS, even though it is still a bit locked down.
  - brudgers 14y ago
    What way is offered by Apple to boot other OS's on their ARM devices such as iPads, iPods, and iPhones?
lunarscape 14y ago
" such decisions reflect the desktop Linux market." Agreed. Such decisions reflect Microsoft's unrivaled power to strongarm cash-strapped and desperate vendors into whatever schemes they choose. I hope the EU is watching.

Zr40 14y ago

Microsoft currently requires non-ARM PCs supporting Secure Boot to have a user-accessible option to disable Secure Boot in order to obtain logo certification. Even if you leave it enabled, there are several options to boot a non-Windows OS: http://www.rodsbooks.com/efi-bootloaders/secureboot.html http://www.rodsbooks.com/efi-bootloaders/secureboot.html