Wrong road

Story: Free Software Foundation Thinks It Can Stop SecureBootTotal Replies: 8
Author Content

Dec 29, 2012
12:20 PM EDT
This approach reminds me of George Patton's quote, "'Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity." ....or something to that effect. Seems to me, FSF's strategy ignores what has always worked for Linux, which is to simply bypass it. Don't whine, don't negotiate, don't play their game. Jes go around it. Sure, it may take longer, but showing M$ and its supplicant vendors their efforts are a waste of time is sooo much better than trying to get them to see the Linux way. They will not, and pretending they will is a fools game. Perhaps I'm ignorant of what exactly is involved with the secure boot thing. After all, I'm no code person, not by any stretch, but it seems to me effectively negating secure boot will be so much better, in the long run, than seeking terms.

Or is this jes a come-on to raise revenue, which is pretty snarky, IMO.

Dec 29, 2012
4:10 PM EDT
I understood from non-authoritative writings that MS requires from PC vendors that the ability to disable secure boot secondarily is mandatory.

If that's right and PC vendors do it this way, there is no real problem as SB will just be disabled by future Linux installers. Someone who can't do that won't go far with any Linux distro. They won't even try a live CD. I must say they won't go further if they had to install Windows itself. People around me really consider a computer no better than a coffee machine. They just want to push a button and let's go. So unless PC vendors ship Linux pre-installed, don't expect it to conquer the desktop market. We also want to just turn the key and the car's engine is on !

The worst disaster of SB to Linux has been major Linux distro maintainers saying Amen to MS.


Dec 29, 2012
4:30 PM EDT
Fully agree with both @notbob & @nmset.

The biggest mistake was made by red Hat trying to accommodate for MS mandates even if it was for business reasons. Matthew Garrett started it and he ended up bypassing it, which should have be done in the first place.


Dec 29, 2012
6:14 PM EDT
Bypasses and workarounds are why, with Linux market share higher than it's ever been, we still get no consideration from hardware vendors. We're overdue to tackle Microsoft's unwarranted grip on them directly.

Dec 29, 2012
7:14 PM EDT
And besides even with those bypasses and workarounds It's Still A Microsoft Sale, not a Linux sale.

Dec 29, 2012
7:25 PM EDT
Quoting:Bypasses and workarounds are why, ...we still get no consideration from hardware vendors

If it wasn't for Bypasses and workarounds, Linux probably couldn't break The Egg/Chicken - Applications/Market share Conundrum.


Dec 29, 2012
9:52 PM EDT
With Android eating into new Windows markets, and games comapnies supporting desktop Linux, it could well be time to move to a more professional footing, time to stop looking like a hobbiest OS, and more like something the hardware vendors want to work with.

Dec 30, 2012
9:53 AM EDT
Quoting:If it wasn't for Bypasses and workarounds, Linux probably couldn't break The Egg/Chicken - Applications/Market share Conundrum.

Not that it has.

Dec 30, 2012
3:20 PM EDT
tuxchic wrote:overdue to tackle Microsoft's unwarranted grip on them directly.

Never gonna happen.

Why? For the same reason there are 600 Linux distros: diversity and freedom of choice. That's what Linux is all about. The same people who can't agree on a single distro are NOT going to suddenly come together for a single goal.

The defeat of SB will happen the way it's always happened. Some fledgling hacker or CS student will get a burr under his/her saddle and decide the only way to prove how good (s)he is, is to defeat SB. Not to bring down M$ or some other lofty goal, but merely to prove his/her mettle. "Lookee me!! I'm the best!" Even in a huge corp like M$, it's usually a single person that lights the bulb.

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!