Will Windows 8 succeed in locking out GNU/Linux?

Yep,... It figures... Now that their consent decree is pretty much over, they'll be going back to their old strategies of getting vendors to lock out Linux... Not that they ever stopped (they just had to be suble about it). I have yet to finish the article I was writing abiut this... and now here's another example. Linux users need to cry foul NOW, anticipate filing class actions, etc. Otherwise the abuse will get worse.

Dear Lord,

This is bad news in every sense of the word. I hate technology sometimes >.<

~Jeff

Shouldn't the blame go to all members, and not just Microsoft? This isn't a single company scheming to take over your PCs.

Members:

- AMD - American Megatrends Inc. - Apple Computer, Inc. - Dell - Hewlett Packard - IBM - Insyde - Intel - Lenovo - Microsoft - Phoenix Technologies

- http://www.uefi.org/about/

IBM and Dell are involved, perhaps someone should contact them to voice Linux support.

No, it's more fun to complain about Microsoft (@Sam) even though they are just one of many members. Why don't we see RedHat or Canonical on the list? That's the real issue here.

How to join: http://www.uefi.org/join/

Quoting:Shouldn't the blame go to all members, and not just Microsoft?

Simple. It is an idea that was conceived by Microsoft a few years back, It is the instigator; Therefore, it deserve total blame.

Quoting:Simple. It is an idea that was conceived by Microsoft a few years back, It is the instigator; Therefore, it deserve total blame.

trololol

Quoting:Shouldn't the blame go to all members, and not just Microsoft?

No. UEFI in itself is a good idea. What is bad is Microsoft requiring OEMs to ship boxes with UEFI set up in a way that locks out the competition. UEFI is not to blame, but Microsoft's proposed OEM requirements for Win8 are.

IMHO Fettoosh is essentially correct. It's pretty clear who is driving this Linux lockout initiative, and I'm puzzled as to the real identity of this fewt who so passionately labors to deflect any and all criticism away from microsoft.

@herzeleid - I am not deflecting criticism, and I'm definitely not implying that Microsoft is not partially to blame. I'm simply saying we shouldn't only blame Microsoft.

In fact, my words were:

Quoting:Shouldn't the blame go to all members, and not just Microsoft?

More importantly:

Quoting:Why don't we see RedHat or Canonical on the list?

Which is a very valid concern.

If you want to know my identity just google me, it is not a secret.

Quoting: [...] I'm puzzled as to the real identity of this fewt [...]

I thought by now you would have guessed, have you forgotten 'A Few Too Many' when I addressed this character? A dead give away for one of my many nom de plumes. You couldn't think this guy is real. Did you?

YBT

I agree with Sander on this one. Secure boot is a good idea. Excluding Linux distributions is where the problem lies.

Every time there's an attempt to keep people from using Linux, there's a Microsoft connection to be found.

@caitlyn: "Secure", sure, if someone besides Microsoft gets to define the term.

My apologies if you folks don't like the fact that I don't drool on my keyboard in agreement about every anti-Microsoft article that hits the internet. When you look closely at them, you almost always find that they don't quite hit the mark in factual reporting.

Fact: Canonical nor RedHat nor any other Linux friendly vendor have joined this standards body (except Dell and IBM).

They hold as much blame as Microsoft does for expecting to enforce the standard that the Linux community failed to participate in creating.

@Caitlyn - Membership is open, I posted a link to join. Canonical, RedHat, Penguin Computing, and any other Linux friendly vendor could have participated.

fewt: I'm not sure it's too late. People are jumping to conclusions and I am not at all sure anything has been concluded here. The author isn't exactly known for factual or unbiased reporting. The onus now is on the FOSS companies and other companies who benefit from FOSS to get on board and make sure this is implemented in an OS-neutral way.

Quoting:fewt: I'm not sure it's too late. People are jumping to conclusions and I am not at all sure anything has been concluded here. The author isn't exactly known for factual or unbiased reporting. The onus now is on the FOSS companies and other companies who benefit from FOSS to get on board and make sure this is implemented in an OS-neutral way.

@caitlyn - That I agree with 100%

I nominate fewt for the annual snark award, based on his initial post, and his subsequent statement that anyone who has a problem with microsofts monopoly abuse is automatically a "keyboard drooler". Geez, how cool would it be if you could just make your fscking point without trying to cr@p all over everyone?

Quoting:I nominate fewt for the annual snark award, based on his initial post, and his subsequent statement that anyone who has a problem with microsofts monopoly abuse is automatically a "keyboard drooler". Geez, how cool would it be if you could just make your fscking point without trying to cr@p all over everyone?

@herzeleid - I'm sorry if you were offended, but I'm done getting attacked for my opinion. Don't want to get lumped in that bucket, don't play the game. If you'll note, my response to Caitlyn was far less abrasive.

Quoting:UEFI in itself is a good idea.

It is a good idea when owner/user of hardware has total control over it.

I guess most of us don't take MS sh*t, few it is impossible to cleanse.

Are the desktops and notebooks now going the way of the smartphone? My HTC EVO 3D smartphone was made inaccessible by a locked bootloader for a good month after its introduction. It took an exploit to open access to this device for the users who purchased it.

Now it looks like we have to look forward to the same cat and mouse game with desktops and notebooks. This is too important to ignore. Is there not anyone who will take up the banner and fight to prevent this from becoming the reality of the future?

I don't believe that a locked bootloader adds to a user's security. Just the opposite is the case. With a locked bootloader, the user has no chance to take personal responsibility for security. We are forced to trust the holder of the keys.

@ Penguinist:

Yes... But there's one more arrow in our quiver,... something that both myself and another posted on a site with a similar announcement...

We can buy machines, and if we can't install Linux, return them with an RMA #. The OEMs will be forced to offload them as factory refurbs at, which would most likely be, a loss. You just need to avoid OEMs with restocking fees, and let them know EXACTLY WHY you are making the return. Very few will disclose up front that they're employing a lockout...

I'm guessing that most of the machines without bios deactivation options will be small form factor machines. These are the machines where M$ is taking it in the shorts, and, unfortunately for me, the machines I typically go for; tablets, set-top boxes, HTPCs, small servers, etc.