True enough, but when "secure boot" leads, via market power, to "one OS," the difference becomes academic, n,est-ce pas?

Besides, wour YOU want hardware crippled to only allow one OS? After all, how else do you expect to limit PCs to 1 OS as a practical matter?

And opponents of the petition, prithee, how many linux kernals and boot loaders are "signed" in the eyes of those using secure boot?

Umm, yeah, there is a difference.

If you sound chip, or network chip, or firewire, etc) dotn work, but the system boots a 'newbie' user might learn something, and its not hard to install a sound card, network card etc.. I always have a few sound and network cards hanign around for just that reason (not that I need to use them much more than 1 time in 20).

As for externals, thats got nothing to do with it.

Lets see you run a non-supported OS on a 'secure boot' system with no way to disable it, and no way to add an OS.

If its useless, then this whole discussion is usless.

If a hardware manufacturer does make 'locked' systems and somebody wants to run a non-suported OS, then they have sold more motherboards. Since the user will have to replace the motherboard at least.

That is getting very close to 'the software and the hardware are tied'. IMO if you own the hardware, you should be able to install (or at least try to install) any OS you want. An 'artifical' lockout with 'other OS support' just entrenches microsoft even more, and will make 'other OS' hardware more expensive.

That is getting close to name-calling. Just because we (the supporters of the petition) dont share your views does not mean that we are uninformed, or 'know nothing'

Which is why the petition is aimed at manufactuers, not microsoft.

*blinks*

I do not think this is important.

I'll simply return such product into shop, since it does not meet my requirements. If too much time has passed and I can no longer return the item, I'll sell it and get the one that does what I need. Simple.

Glad you realized it.

It is user's problem. Installing different os is an advanced feature used by power-users. If user wants different OS, he must do research in advance.

Not quite. Hardware you have must be able to do what manufacturer claims it is able to do. If manufacturer doesn't claim you can install linux, then is is not required to have such ability. Manufacturer doesn't have to support linux or any operating system, regardless of your opinion. If you disagree, you'll have to cite a law that enforces manufacturer to add linux support for everything.

I understand that some people have an irrational urge to install linux onto everything (why the hell would you want to install linux on PS3, for example), but for normal user AND manufacturer such ability is not important. Computer is no longer a machine for a specialist, which means if you want advanced features useful for a "specialist", then you should buy specific hardware that provides uncommon feature you need.

Or just just go and make a petition to let the manufacturers know that this feature is wanted in their future products. This will give me at least a small chance that the manufacturer will make it that way. Doing nothing will get me no chance at all. That is common sense, I would think.

As long as there is substantial amount of people that want to install different OS, there will be at least one manufacturer that will provide motherboards with such ability, and since Linux is used for servers, such manufacturers won't suddenly disappear. That's just a common sense. Another thing is that there will always be a person willing to find a way to install linux onto every gadget they can find, so even IF manufacturer actually goes nuts and tries to lock out linux, there will be a way to install and run linux. Which means you don't need to do anything.

Also, INSTEAD of writing petition, it would be a better idea to try to contact manufacturer directly.

The issue is, really, that the manufacturers have to ADD something to STOP us from installing another OS which is something we do now. It makes no sense at all to add to the complexity when in theory it wont achieve anything important apart from making Windows more anti competitive than it already is.

If you want to start citing laws or precedents then how about we start at the EUs Anti Trust findings against Microsoft. Stopping an end user from using something unless they use your product is anti-competitive and goes against the competition laws of not only the EU and USA but also Australia, NZ, and most British Commonwealth countries which use precedents set by other Common Law jurisdictions.

I am not talking about breaking phones or game consoles, I am talking about a desktop PC that should do what it is intended for: running the OSes of my choice.

I disagree. If I make a call at ASUS, Gigabyte or any other manufacturer they will hear what I have to say, but nothing will happen. An organization like the FSF is much more likely to be heard by the manufacturers. And for that they need to have data how much users want that feature.

That would be reassuring. Do you have some evidence for this? Such as a statement in the UEFI specification that the user must be able to disable secure boot?

My understanding is that the manufacturer is not required to provide a way of disabling it.

And where exactly this purpose is documented? As far as I know, this is not the purpose of desktop PC. The purpose is to provide applications to user in order to aid the user in daily tasks or for entertainment. Installing "any os you want" is different kind of feature.

And if you write a petition, they won't even hear what you have to say. What is the point?

They can do market research themselves - without your help.

I made my point:You somehow just "forgot" to quote it.

I was talking about the FSF, not the manufacturers.

This is getting boring. Anyway, my opinion/point is:

1. UEFI poses no danger to linux.
2. As long as there is a demand for linux, somebody will provide compatible hardware or a ways to boot linux. You do not need to worry.
3. Online petition is an incredibly inefficient way to let manufacturer know about your opinion, since results of online petition can be manipulated and are not trustworthy. Personal contact might be a better idea since in this case manufacturer will be dealing with live person instead of possibly fake number of people. If numerous people contact manufacturer, manufacturer will clarify (adobe did that when people kept asking for "photoshop for linux") situation OR do a market research. I do not think this is going to happen with online petition (I'd say hell is more likely to freeze over).
4. Desktop computer user is not entitled to have ability to boot any OS. Manufacturer is not obliged to provide such ability, unless such ability is advertised or mentioned in product description. The goal of PC is to provide applications to aid or entertain user. OS is secondary. Which is the reason why people do not go berserk when they discover that their symbian phone can't run linux.
5. FSF is a bad organization to support your cause. Stallman is an unreasonable fanatic, and while they did good things in the past, their goal is obviously to enforce their version of freedom upon everybody. They do not care about improvement of software industry or operating systems, they care only about their version of freedom, and they will spread FUD in order to achieve their goal. IMO being associated with FSF will decrease chances of your request being taken seriously.
6. For a better organization to support your statement, I'd recommend freebsd project or linux foundation. Those guys actually care about software development, unlike FSF. However, for some reason I do not see those guys panicking about UEFI.

IMHO if this does by some small chance, remove the possibility of running a Linux OS I'll just not purchase these systems. I mean after all I run mainly older laptops and desktops presently so why upgrade unnecessarily if my units are still in good repair?

It seems some clever Linux users think they're so smart that a locked uefi will not affect them.
They think someone will hack it and provide a way to install Linux on those PC.
I have a question for them: what is the percentage of iPads running Linux? close to 0.0000% (same for other devices with similar "security features" I'm sure)

Some say that we as Linux pc buyers can just not buy the PCs with locked uefi.
My answer is: we can influence the PC manufacturers before hand, let's do it!

Some say we have no chance of obtaining that it becomes mandatory to hardware manufacturers providing UEFI to provide a switch to disable it.
My answer is: We succeeded in Europe in forcing Microsoft to provide a menu to choose which browser to use, so we can also get this!

The petition may not be the best way, but it's a way, it's a first step, it raises awareness.

I am very surprised that some Linux users fail to see this, and send messages that do not help the community

Hi,
Go for it then! Locked UEFI?? Get real, your just adding to the fear. 'UEFI' will be controlled by the OEM via utilities that are available to the end user. If you happen to buy a piece of OEM that does not make the utilities available(Apple here) then that's your individual buyer awareness to buy locked equipment. Why not petition Apple for a locked system?? Even 'Jobs' would be laughing from the grave!

People who's basis for this petition just do not understand the hardware limitations of BIOS and advantages for a 'UEFI BIOS'. 'Secure Boot' has residual conspiracy effect by the wording that someone is locking you out. Why buy something that doesn't suit or meet your needs? Every manufacture to date that I have looked at that uses 'UEFI' does provide the means to control the 'secure boot' feature. I simply cannot say 'every UEFI' based system since it would be humanly impossible to get to all machines.

Even Microsoft has stated that the feature does not prevent other OS from being used. Users need to know and understand the whole situation. Send your petition! My stance is that the petition is worthless and not necessary.

Comparing the IE situation is not the same as this. IE is intrinsic part of the M$ OS, M$ did not prevent someone from loading another browser. They just made IE the default, there choice since it was integrated in the OS. Option to change the default. BAH! Your Euro change was a farce for going down the yellow brick road! Laughable! Cross the 't' and dot the 'i' affect.

Fear conspiracy & Microsoft appeased to keep a secure market. Different!