The real reason for Microsoft's use of UEFI
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Ridcully Nov 20, 2012 6:07 PM EDT |
.....Indeed. And I'd like to know what it is, right from the mouth of Redmond. Ostensibly it's about security. I'm sorry but I don't buy that. Any lock can be broken and it is just a matter of time before Microsoft's UEFI system is broken by those "naughty people" who currently are working on doing just that, and once more the security sieve that is Windows will be fully exposed. So if it isn't really about security, what is UEFI's underlying raison d'etre ? Couldn't be an attempt to control the computer platform and simultaneously block Linux uptake could it ? Naaaah. Perish the thought. Microsoft is simply too ethical to ever even think of that. Right ? 2c :-) |
| caitlyn Nov 20, 2012 6:25 PM EDT |
Right. Absolutely. Uh huh... |
| helios Nov 20, 2012 6:29 PM EDT |
You know Tony, a few years ago, we lamented the fact that we had a couple of fairly high-end Acer laptops that were locked out by the trusted computing module and Acer wouldn't help us unlock them. Eventually and due to public pressure, they capitulated and inserted the unlock code for us but the real story behind this story is the one that's untold. Several people in the hacker community got wind of this and I think it took them 2-3 weeks before they emailed me the hack to get around it and it was fairly easy to implement. Of course, I never published it and I keep it to myself but I am not sure that one of them didn't publish it anyway, well, just because that's what hackers do. So yeah, locks get picked and doors get opened. It's just like the ISP's here in the US with their adopting the six strikes rule for torrent downloaders. They state that their intention isn't to stop serial downloaders. They can't. Open DNS and Open VPN or other dirt-cheap VPN/proxy services are beginning to pop up all over the place. Their goal is to discourage the occasional downloader and "educate them" on the cost of "theft" I think that's what MS is doing here. They know we'll find a way around it. They're just counting on it being too difficult for the masses to do. |
| caitlyn Nov 20, 2012 6:34 PM EDT |
This time I agree with Ken completely. Sorry about the other thread, but I will have to disagree occasionally :) It's about discouraging the use of anything that isn't Windows. Now that we know that Linux is up to 9% of the corporate desktop the Redmond crowd decided that they really have something to worry about. |
| helios Nov 20, 2012 6:42 PM EDT |
Cait,l if we agreed all the time....well, what fun is there in that? Neither of us take disagreement personally these days so it's fine. And yeah, when adding an OS is akin to changing banks and re-doing all your drafts, deposits and bill pay, people just are not going to bother with it. |
| Ridcully Nov 20, 2012 9:42 PM EDT |
@Caitlyn, with respect to agreement/disagreement: ........what Helios said. [You know that's a delightful phrase and I've only just begun to employ it, purely because this site uses it quite often. Very handy way of saying you agree completely with a previous statement. I guess even old white muzzled dogs can learn new tricks. LOL] |
| caitlyn Nov 21, 2012 12:37 PM EDT |
They're not going to bother until the realize the bank's fees are costing them an arm and a leg. If they realize that then they will switch. |
| helios Nov 21, 2012 2:47 PM EDT |
Cait, that's just the problem, and at the risk of going way off topic here, (like that's anything new for me) Bank of America screwed their customers out of billions of dollars by manipulating debit payments and overdraft fees, and still, they rank as the largest US bank, based on customer numbers. I ran from them like a scalded dog when they did that to me but I didn't have direct deposit or payment drafts at the time. Those are powerful anchors, but then again, I would hope you are right. |
| AmyT Nov 24, 2012 4:03 PM EDT |
Quoting:So yeah, locks get picked and doors get openedWPS fell, Windows8 security has already been breached by some hackers who found vulnerability through a dialogue box, so what doesn't? (Of course I hopefully exclude the signed kernel module features of the newer Linux versions, and things like R/O squashfs bootable images etc.) I read recently that the replacement of 1 (ONE??) file in Win8 sees the UEFI requirement hacked; maybe it's still a work in progress, but also maybe, it's now a done deal. What many people fail to realise, is that MS are also cutting off Windows users as well, for without a signed copy of a Windows install, the WriteToDisk is disabled, which I believe also means ANY version of non-signed Windows as well, so until you disable UEFI, any attempted install of MS versions previous to Win8 will fail. Of course, the demand from all those hackers who have a dislike for Win8, just makes the challenge all the more inspiring. |
| caitlyn Nov 26, 2012 5:46 PM EDT |
Did y'all read Jesse Smith's experience with a Secure Boot enabled HP machine? Tell me again how this isn't about forcing users to stick with Windows 8. For most non-technical or less than superbly patient people trying to put another OS on a new system is either too difficult, too much trouble, or will turn the machine into an expensive doorstop: http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20121126 |
| Bob_Robertson Nov 28, 2012 10:52 AM EDT |
Caitlyn, did now. So much for the easy way to try Linux using a LiveCD. And if Win8 gets corrupted and can't boot, a user who would be intimidated by his 6 steps is going to do..... what? The hubris of Microsoft is never boring. |
| Fettoosh Nov 28, 2012 1:34 PM EDT |
MS intentions were obvious from day one, didn't they try the same few years back with the Palladium? It is obvious because they don't allow any other OS to be installed on ARM devices and initially wanted the same for the Intel platform. It is obvious because users don't benefit much from it and the only full beneficiary is MS itself. I don't think much changed since it was discussed in details here on Lxer not too long ago and specifically what @TuxChick said. |
| CFWhitman Nov 28, 2012 2:18 PM EDT |
I could see this coming from day one, but it still really annoys me. Of course, this won't stop me from installing Linux on one of these machines (though it will be a bit of a pain in the neck compared to the normal ease of doing so). Linux usage on the desktop has been going up, slowly but steadily, and progressions like that often become geometric, so that is scary to Microsoft. The fact that a number of corporations have actually adopted Linux on the desktop, and desktop Linux installations in the enterprise are significantly higher than the under 2% of the total desktop market is probably even scarier. Secure boot is a blatant attempt from Microsoft to consolidate their position thinly veiled as a security measure. |
| tracyanne Nov 28, 2012 6:09 PM EDT |
Personally I will never try to install Linux on a computer that has Windows pre installed. I will always buy no OS or from a Linux pre installer, where my money is better spent supporting someone who actually cares about Linux, and, of course, I am not supporting Microsoft by paying their license charges. In fact the last time I purchased a computer with Windows was a MSI netbook with Windows XP, since then the other 3 computers I have were all with Ubuntu pre installed. |
| CFWhitman Nov 29, 2012 2:26 PM EDT |
Well, there are two reasons why I end up replacing Windows with Linux fairly often. The first is that I often get old computers from various people that they just don't want anymore. Once I am sure they have their data, I zero out the hard drive and rebuild the computer. Some I use for myself (or guests at my home) and some I give away to relatives. I generally put Linux on these machines unless someone specifically wants Windows, and I have the proper install media to fit the original Windows license. The other reason that I often end up putting Linux on a computer that originally had Windows is because most hardware that comes operating system free or with Linux pre-installed seems to be based on Clevo ODM hardware. My experience with the reliability of Clevo hardware has not been encouraging. This makes me hesitant to buy from the companies I would like to support. |
| JaseP Nov 29, 2012 3:27 PM EDT |
Quoting: ... I am not supporting Microsoft by paying their license charges. While that's a nice sentiment,... it really isn't practical, as MS actually lowers the price point on many machines, as a result of bloat-ware subsidies. Norton pays to get their stuff on there as do other 3rd party software & service companies. I just bought a Dell with an i3 processor (supports Hardware Virtualization), 4GB RAM and 500GB HD, for (well) under $500. Granted, wiping the HD and installing Linux takes some work (incompatible wifi card & some other niggles), but It'll make a nice duel boot machine when I'm done (Kubuntu 12.04 & Scientific Linux or CentOS 6.3). If I tried to buy a Linux or no OS machine, it would've cost closer to $550 to $600, for the equivalent hardware. |
| tracyanne Nov 29, 2012 6:14 PM EDT |
Quoting:If I tried to buy a Linux or no OS machine, it would've cost closer to $550 to $600, for the equivalent hardware. If you buy a big name brand... perhaps. I don't. Typically it costs me less to buy the Linux or no OS machine. But even if that wasn't available to me I would still buy a Linux pre installed, from someone like Za Reason. |
| BernardSwiss Nov 29, 2012 9:27 PM EDT |
@ JaseP I would call that more "expedient" than "pragmatic" (which may be okay, as long as you don't confuse the two). You do save some money -- but you're still feeding the problem; and it's a significant part of how Microsoft maintains its monopolistic leverage over OEMs. Microsoft still gets paid its cut, and in this context, that "cut" might as well be called "ransom"). The savings are actually provided by those 3rd-party subsidies, not by Microsoft. Tracyanne wasn't talking about what's cheaper, she was talking about not feeding the abusive monopoly. I'm not going to tell anyone that it's right or wrong to buy the subsidized Windows-loaded machine -- especially "typical" users with one main computer, who will likely either want Windows as well as Linux (for games, Netflix, Quickbooks, etc) or find it prudent to keep a dual-boot option for those crucial little things that a Mac/Windows-centric world still requires (tax software, "course-ware", work requirements, government bureaucracy requirements, "activating" e-book readers and other Linux-based appliances, etc). At least nowadays, most (but not all) banks take non-IE browsers and non-Windows operating systems in stride. |
| JaseP Nov 30, 2012 12:35 AM EDT |
@ BernardSwiss... I'm going through my second divorce inside of 5 years (from the grant ofnthe 1st decree to initiation of the 2nd divorce)... I'm not going to be a crusader at this point in my life... Part of what makes me so difficult to live with is that I'm such a staunch Linux & FOSS advocate. It's not a good time in my life for playing the hero role,... at least to anyone else than my daughter. If it's any consolation to anyone, I didn't let the machine hook up to the internet under Windows, before I wiped it... I'm sure MS keeps track somehow. |
| tracyanne Nov 30, 2012 12:51 AM EDT |
Quoting: I'm sure MS keeps track somehow. They do indeed, they know exactly how many copies of Windows have been activated, and how many have not. Microsoft probably have better stats on how many Linux installs there are, than anyone. |
| BernardSwiss Nov 30, 2012 4:40 AM EDT |
@JaseP Been there, done that. (Only once, but I know how it goes). And like I said, I don't tell people that it's right or wrong for them to use a particular OS, especially if I don't know what there actual situation is. I hope I didn't sound like I was making moral judgements. (I am willing to make suggestions and recommendations, though.) ;-) |
| Ridcully Nov 30, 2012 8:11 AM EDT |
@Tracyanne......Actually, your second last comment above triggered me to make another comment on this thread. Personally, I have no interest in purchasing a new computer from any of the commercial outlets in Australia........especially since they are now loaded with Win8 together with what I consider is a deliberate attempt by Microsoft to destroy the present concepts of a personal computer that can be used/programmed the way the owner wishes. The concept of a locked UEFI (whether user alterable or not) is repugnant and in my opinion has nothing to do with security at all, but is solely concerned with controlling the way consumers use their computers. We are already seeing articles that explain how complex altering the UEFI lock can be and how very little the methods are being made public - Microsoft wins again in its crusade to prevent massive uptake of Linux on the desktop. Should I have to purchase another laptop, it is quite likely to come from an ex-Govt. supplier here in SE Qld. These approximately 3 year old computers on offer are generally in excellent condition, come pre-loaded with either WinXP or Win7 and so UEFI locks don't exist. The machines are usually Dell or HP (sometimes Toshiba) and they work very well with Linux in any mode you care to employ. And they are cheap. |
| tracyanne Nov 30, 2012 4:14 PM EDT |
Tony you can purchase New computers from Pioneer Computers in Sydney, and get them with Ubuntu pre installed, then install your favourite Linux after market.... And they will cost less than the same machine with Windows. |
| caitlyn Nov 30, 2012 4:24 PM EDT |
Has anyone else noticed that the way UEFI is normally pronounced it sounds like you're swearing at someone, as in "You Effi...!" Kinda fits if you think about it. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!