- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Secure boot: Microsoft shows up Linux
|
|
|
Comments (70)
50 earlier comments in the full thread.
I didn't say a web counter that gives accurate numbers. I said an unbiased one. That is, one not selectively using sites that favor particular customers/groups. I should have said "more unbiased" because it's almost impossible to be totally unbiased. Wikimedia sites are about the closest I know of, but even they favor some language speaking groups over others, which is likely to slant the numbers away from Linux a bit. Also, of course large non-connected deployments won't show up in Web counters.
Business machines are what OEMs look at when making decisions about business sales. Consumer aimed machines are a different concern.
Business machines are what OEMs look at when making decisions about business sales. Consumer aimed machines are a different concern.
> If anything, businesses that are increasing deployment of desktop Linux have a more immediate influence on this policy that the distribution makers
With the possible exception of Red Hat, SuSE, and Canonical; they probably do. Did you see any of them using it for the benefit of Linux users?
> I wouldn't be surprised to see business desktops/workstations with setups of Secure Boot that are significantly more straightforward to disable.
And fortunately, those machines will be readily available via the off lease market in just a few years. But that doesn't solve the immediate problem.
With the possible exception of Red Hat, SuSE, and Canonical; they probably do. Did you see any of them using it for the benefit of Linux users?
> I wouldn't be surprised to see business desktops/workstations with setups of Secure Boot that are significantly more straightforward to disable.
And fortunately, those machines will be readily available via the off lease market in just a few years. But that doesn't solve the immediate problem.
@vagabondo
It's quite likely that business/enterprise-oriented systems will generally be provided with more sensible UEFI Secure Boot implementations.
But "regular Joes" -- who bought their laptop at Best Buy or even from Dell (the "affordable" consumer-ized models, not even in the same web-store as the business models) -- who might otherwise consider trying Linux, will be faced with a lot of arbitrary and confusing hassle, and scary red "WARNING!" screens about how awfully dangerous it is to disable Secure Boot.
Add to that the potential problems that will accompany (details depending on specific OEM and even model) trying to run a Live CD or Live USB Linux distro (not to mention Parted Magic, Clonezilla and various other utility suites/rescue tools which even Windows-fans use) and the barriers to user migration increase exponentially.
For example: Just last week an acquaintance of mine was complaining about how her Windows 7 netbook was much hassle the had almost stopped using it, because every time she turned it on all sorts of scans and updates (and decisions not only about whether to trust/allow the update, but offers to also install other software, too) got in the way of just doing her business. I had a live USB of Mint 13 LTS (with Cinnamon desktop) handy, so I explained how updating works in Linux, and demoed it on her system. She liked it -- so now I'm going to set her up with dual-boot over the holidays, so she can play with it and see how well it works for her.
On a previous occasion I had been able to run a live USB Linux-based utility (Parted Magic) to reassure her that some glitches she had encountered were not signs of hardware issues, which also helped show the value of Linux.
If I had had to tinker and research for 30 minutes just to get Linux running -- and blow off a bright red "Danger! Messing with this might blow up your computer!" warning screen, as well, she would most definitely be seeing Linux as a non-viable option. And you can't blame her.
It's quite likely that business/enterprise-oriented systems will generally be provided with more sensible UEFI Secure Boot implementations.
But "regular Joes" -- who bought their laptop at Best Buy or even from Dell (the "affordable" consumer-ized models, not even in the same web-store as the business models) -- who might otherwise consider trying Linux, will be faced with a lot of arbitrary and confusing hassle, and scary red "WARNING!" screens about how awfully dangerous it is to disable Secure Boot.
Add to that the potential problems that will accompany (details depending on specific OEM and even model) trying to run a Live CD or Live USB Linux distro (not to mention Parted Magic, Clonezilla and various other utility suites/rescue tools which even Windows-fans use) and the barriers to user migration increase exponentially.
For example: Just last week an acquaintance of mine was complaining about how her Windows 7 netbook was much hassle the had almost stopped using it, because every time she turned it on all sorts of scans and updates (and decisions not only about whether to trust/allow the update, but offers to also install other software, too) got in the way of just doing her business. I had a live USB of Mint 13 LTS (with Cinnamon desktop) handy, so I explained how updating works in Linux, and demoed it on her system. She liked it -- so now I'm going to set her up with dual-boot over the holidays, so she can play with it and see how well it works for her.
On a previous occasion I had been able to run a live USB Linux-based utility (Parted Magic) to reassure her that some glitches she had encountered were not signs of hardware issues, which also helped show the value of Linux.
If I had had to tinker and research for 30 minutes just to get Linux running -- and blow off a bright red "Danger! Messing with this might blow up your computer!" warning screen, as well, she would most definitely be seeing Linux as a non-viable option. And you can't blame her.
I'd like to point out that I never said and don't believe that there is a problem here or even that the solutions in place are good ones. I just don't think it's fair to blame Linux distribution makers for failing to wield power that they don't actually have. This problem is mostly related to Microsoft's ability to bring pressure on OEMs based on their desktop market position, and to some degree the OEMs being willing to knuckle under to Microsoft.
> the barriers to user migration increase exponentially.
Gasp! Could... Could that have been Microsoft's motivation all along????
Gasp! Could... Could that have been Microsoft's motivation all along????
> I just don't think it's fair to blame Linux distribution makers for failing to wield power that they don't actually have.
I have to agree with that assessment. Like I said, that's the function organizations like the Linux Foundation putatively serve.
I have to agree with that assessment. Like I said, that's the function organizations like the Linux Foundation putatively serve.
@ BernardSwiss
There is nothing like a "more sensible" secure boot implementation. If you are using only Windows 8 - and that's all you would be using in a business - then you will notice nothing. The machine will just boot and will do so faster because Fast Boot is also turned on.
Members of the Linux community have made an almighty noise about GNOME 3, to the extent that even the GNOME developers - folk who rarely give a hoot about their users - have started to realise they need to provide some kind of mechanism to turn back to the way GNOME 2 worked.
Why didn't people raise a stink about secure boot? Why didn't they put pressure on the companies and the Linux Foundation to do something? After all, commercial entities are more inclined to react to a public row rather than non-profits.
And people cannot say they were unaware - last September it was known that this kind of lockdown would be implemented.
Sam
There is nothing like a "more sensible" secure boot implementation. If you are using only Windows 8 - and that's all you would be using in a business - then you will notice nothing. The machine will just boot and will do so faster because Fast Boot is also turned on.
Members of the Linux community have made an almighty noise about GNOME 3, to the extent that even the GNOME developers - folk who rarely give a hoot about their users - have started to realise they need to provide some kind of mechanism to turn back to the way GNOME 2 worked.
Why didn't people raise a stink about secure boot? Why didn't they put pressure on the companies and the Linux Foundation to do something? After all, commercial entities are more inclined to react to a public row rather than non-profits.
And people cannot say they were unaware - last September it was known that this kind of lockdown would be implemented.
Sam
Well, after seeing how much of a pain it is to install Windows 8 Pro on a machine that had Windows 8 Home just because the key saved in the firmware was a Windows 8 Home key, and the Windows 8 software refused to let you enter a different key instead of using the one in the firmware, I can foresee there being a lot of future complaints about some of the new firmware choices that these companies have made.
The difference between the relatively subdued objections to Secure Boot and the outcry raised over Gnome 3 is a lot that people were actually trying to deal with Gnome 3, but they hadn't been hit with the issues of Secure Boot yet. It's true that the Linux Foundation is mostly about supporting the interests of its members (what else would you expect with such an organization?). However, I don't think they have much clout with computer manufacturers when it comes to consumer aimed machines anyway.
The difference between the relatively subdued objections to Secure Boot and the outcry raised over Gnome 3 is a lot that people were actually trying to deal with Gnome 3, but they hadn't been hit with the issues of Secure Boot yet. It's true that the Linux Foundation is mostly about supporting the interests of its members (what else would you expect with such an organization?). However, I don't think they have much clout with computer manufacturers when it comes to consumer aimed machines anyway.
Quoting:I'd like to point out that I never said and don't believe that there is a problem here or even that the solutions in place are good ones. I just don't think it's fair to blame Linux distribution makers for failing to wield power that they don't actually have. This problem is mostly related to Microsoft's ability to bring pressure on OEMs based on their desktop market position, and to some degree the OEMs being willing to knuckle under to Microsoft.That pretty much sums up everything I wrote in a nice, tidy little paragraph.
Quoting: Gasp! Could... Could that have been Microsoft's motivation all along????Those of us who said that all along were called fear mongers, remember?
> Those of us who said that all along were called fear mongers, remember?
Not just remember, I've been called that so often I had a t-shirt made with it on it. (no, but it'd be fun to do)
I've got a long list of things I advocate that are being deliberately shut-out/demonized/marginalized/etc., most of which have nothing to do with computers.
I've been called a "conspiracy nut" by lots of different people, and worse even by folks on this board. It's fun.
The fully OpenSource Laptop looks like a great project, I hope they get their F/OSS boot ROM soon.
Not just remember, I've been called that so often I had a t-shirt made with it on it. (no, but it'd be fun to do)
I've got a long list of things I advocate that are being deliberately shut-out/demonized/marginalized/etc., most of which have nothing to do with computers.
I've been called a "conspiracy nut" by lots of different people, and worse even by folks on this board. It's fun.
The fully OpenSource Laptop looks like a great project, I hope they get their F/OSS boot ROM soon.
I guess people didn't really understand what "secure boot" actually meant, and, or, thought the Linux Foundation would actually do something useful.
The interesting thing is there are OEMs who are members of the Linux Foundation, and on the other hand a senior employee of the linux Foundatuion (well they do pay Linus Torvolds to oversee the Linux kernel), said it was a good thing and nothing to worry about.
The interesting thing is there are OEMs who are members of the Linux Foundation, and on the other hand a senior employee of the linux Foundatuion (well they do pay Linus Torvolds to oversee the Linux kernel), said it was a good thing and nothing to worry about.
> Why didn't people raise a stink about secure boot?
Most people aren't even aware secure boot exists.
Most people aren't even aware secure boot exists.
Quoting:and on the other hand a senior employee of the linux Foundatuion (well they do pay Linus Torvolds to oversee the Linux kernel), said it was a good thing and nothing to worry about.
@TA,
Are you sure they weren't referring to UEFI as being a good thing? IIRC, I believe it was Linus who said that.
Note that, as @tuxchick said above, Secure Boot is MS implementation of one feature of UEFI.
UEFI is both good and necessary -- the "legacy" BIOS system is older than dirt. Secure boot is another, much more troubling kettle of fish.
Quoting:the "legacy" BIOS system is older than dirt.The mistake conservatives make is to say, "This is old, therefore good."
The mistake liberals make is to say, "This is new, therefore better."
Don't you people ever read your /usr/share/games/fortune file?
@fettosh
Most likely. the thing is most people don't differentiate between UEFI and "SecureBoot"
Quoting:Are you sure they weren't referring to UEFI as being a good thing?
Most likely. the thing is most people don't differentiate between UEFI and "SecureBoot"
Quoting:the thing is most people don't differentiate between ...
True and that is how MS gets away with so many of its devious ideas.
My desktop computer at home has a UEFI based motherboard. There is no sign of Secure Boot anywhere. It seems to be a pretty good motherboard (though it was a little glitchy with the kernel in *buntu 12.04, I've had no problems with the 12.10 kernel).
@fetoosh and others,
I'm quite glad that small form-factor boards like the wildly popular Raspberry Pi have completely AVOIDED the hands of M$ and its dirty UEFI/Secure Boot. Let's hope that this continues!!
2c
I'm quite glad that small form-factor boards like the wildly popular Raspberry Pi have completely AVOIDED the hands of M$ and its dirty UEFI/Secure Boot. Let's hope that this continues!!
2c
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Oh, and tere is no such thing as an unbiased web counter. As I mentioned before, a LOT of machines simply cannot be counted that way.