Microsoft trying to prevent you installing linux - sign the petition now!
GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
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)
Now, a trick question: why the hell would you want to run Linux on iPad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 16pide
I am very surprised that some Linux users fail to see this, and send messages that do not help the community
YOUR message does not help the community. You're spreading paranoia. That does not improve linux. If you want to improve linux, patch a few opensource programs or something - THAT will be useful. The creator of linux himself said that thinking that linux is anti-microsoft is silly.
Petitions have only limited effect, even if signed by a lot of people, and online petitions next to zero. There are sites that are built around the very idea of hosting and allowing people to sign petitions, and so far I've seen none that have made any change. It's simply that corporations like Microsoft aren't interested in reading such things, especially when there's no guarantee that real people have really signed them (i.e., that all the names are truly names of living people who themselves signed the petition--they could be generated as well). Maybe if 50% of their actual customers signed such a petition, then it might have an impact (or not). I guess it doesn't harm if you do sign, except that your opinion is then recorded and stored for who knows how long, and can later be used against you, if a suitable situation arises
I don't think this will be a problem--Windows sales are not so great at the moment, and a lot of people will simply not buy a computer if it's locked to a single operating system, or if opening it costs extra. Apple sales will surely rise, as will the sales of computer manufacturers that do not implement that thing. The good side of it, fighting malware, will probably also be of limited use because the inventions of man tend to get outdated, fought off and won fairly soon, especially when it comes to computers... Who would really want to pay real money for a piece of electronics that is bound to be old in two years, can only run given software, and in any case after a few years can't probably even keep out the malware that it was supposed to keep out? It simply does not work that way, and thus it does not generate any real money for anybody in the long run, and is thus just plain stupid It could work, if Microsoft built their own machines the way Apple does...but they don't.
Hi,
Your Euro change was a farce for going down the yellow brick road!
Look at this if you think it was a farce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_s...f_Web_browsers
Non Internet Explorer browsers are doing much better in Europe than in "free America".
So yes, petitions, media coverage, and trials can help change technology, which in turn can change how we use it.
It's not all about the sum of customers' buying decisions.
So should I sign the petition? Of course I support FOSS and don't want Microsoft to implement something to stop alternative choices from being made, but if it is to protect the millions of Windows users and has an opt-out or a way to disable it for people that don't use Windows, I am OK with that.
I do politely suggest that you're over-reacting to the thought of "fascist Microsoft" (or whatever...) and overlooking the very practical and even necessary reason for this hardware feature.
Let's say it's three o'clock in the morning, and your nighttime operator is, unbeknownst to you, an industrial spy (or simply a thief). Your systems are highly secure, or so you think. What you do not know is that your "sysop" is inserting a Knoppix CD-ROM into your computers and rebooting them ... under his full control now, with all of your software based security effectively bypassed.
He's going to make one more download of customer medical information now, and then he's going to "leak" it in such a way that the trail leads straight back to your company ... The regulators will be on their way ...
Sweet dreams, Mr. CIO.
Now, it just so happens that all of your protected systems run Linux! If your hardware had been equipped with this boot-preventing system, yes, your Linux systems could be the ones that are protected, just as surely as Windows or any other system by any other vendor could have been. There is nothing "Microsoft Windows specific" about this, because in the real world such a feature would not be able to serve a substantial segment of the market: namely, Linux. But your sysop would not have been able to bring in any ol' Knoppix LiveCD and taken control of your systems in the middle of the night.
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 10-25-2011 at 08:47 AM.
I do politely suggest that you're over-reacting to the thought of "fascist Microsoft" (or whatever...) and overlooking the very practical and even necessary reason for this hardware feature.
Let's say it's three o'clock in the morning, and your nighttime operator is, unbeknownst to you, an industrial spy (or simply a thief). Your systems are highly secure, or so you think. What you do not know is that your "sysop" is inserting a Knoppix CD-ROM into your computers and rebooting them ... under his full control now, with all of your software based security effectively bypassed.
He's going to make one more download of customer medical information now, and then he's going to "leak" it in such a way that the trail leads straight back to your company...
Sweet dreams, Mr. CIO.
That's a good point. But I don't want it to be:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Franklin
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
If you understand what I mean. Though this doesn't seem to be the case, yet.
If the toaster can only warm food from one company, without warning it's customers, than YES.
A PC is NOT for Windows-only, unless it's sold for that purpose (hint: it isn't).
It's a cute analogy, but it isn't correct. I can toast some toast, but I can also toast a bagel or something else too. I'd be really interested in seeing food DRM though, LOL.
I do politely suggest that you're over-reacting to the thought of "fascist Microsoft" (or whatever...) and overlooking the very practical and even necessary reason for this hardware feature.
Let's say it's three o'clock in the morning, and your nighttime operator is, unbeknownst to you, an industrial spy (or simply a thief). Your systems are highly secure, or so you think. What you do not know is that your "sysop" is inserting a Knoppix CD-ROM into your computers and rebooting them ... under his full control now, with all of your software based security effectively bypassed.
He's going to make one more download of customer medical information now, and then he's going to "leak" it in such a way that the trail leads straight back to your company ... The regulators will be on their way ...
Sweet dreams, Mr. CIO.
Now, it just so happens that all of your protected systems run Linux! If your hardware had been equipped with this boot-preventing system, yes, your Linux systems could be the ones that are protected, just as surely as Windows or any other system by any other vendor could have been. There is nothing "Microsoft Windows specific" about this, because in the real world such a feature would not be able to serve a substantial segment of the market: namely, Linux. But your sysop would not have been able to bring in any ol' Knoppix LiveCD and taken control of your systems in the middle of the night.
I won't deny that this feature is a good feature, especially when used in corporations with sensible data. That that doesn't mean that home users, that want to try a Linux distribution just because they have heard of Linux or simply users that want (or have the need) to dualboot, shouldn't be able to do so. All is fine with UEFI and Secure Boot, as long as you can disable Secure Boot (or there are tools available for signing your own bootloaders/kernel, but that wouldn't work for many users, I think).
I know how to cope with that. But how many Windows users that bought a Dell (or any other OEM) will possibly never have the chance to run a Linux Live-CD. Which also means that the friendly Linux guy from the next door will not be able to help them when the inevitable (for many users) data loss/system malfunction has happened.
If Microsoft is the Bad Guy here then you must include Apple along with other Vendors or manufactures. Nothing wrong with locking the system to available known OS, just more work for users. One more tool to protect your system. Note the underlined in the above quote. Not a conspiracy! Get your facts first! You need to use the available tools to introduce another OS to UEFI.
Get real?
You should know better as a moderator.
*You're pointing at the wrong UEFI (no, they're not compatible).
*"Secure Boot" has nothing to do with this.
*It's locking all hardware (everything needs to be signed; including video, tv, audio, ... hardware).
The way I see it: it's a lost opportunity.
This could have been good (for everyone) if users (not vendors) are allowed to create their own keys as well.
With this current implementation it's no more than an anti piracy tool for Microsoft that allows vendors to cripple PCs as well (mac-style).
I honestly don't see anything good in it. It's yet an other design flaw for the already hopelessly flawed x_whatever_compatible PC design.
PS: I don't know anything about US laws, but this isn't legal in the EU.
*You're pointing at the wrong UEFI (no, they're not compatible).
*"Secure Boot" has nothing to do with this.
*It's locking all hardware (everything needs to be signed; including video, tv, audio, ... hardware).
The way I see it: it's a lost opportunity.
This could have been good (for everyone) if users (not vendors) are allowed to create their own keys as well.
With this current implementation it's no more than an anti piracy tool for Microsoft that allows vendors to cripple PCs as well (mac-style).
I honestly don't see anything good in it. It's yet an other design flaw for the already hopelessly flawed x_whatever_compatible PC design.
PS: I don't know anything about US laws, but this isn't legal in the EU.
How is that I should know better as a moderator? This subject has nothing to do with me being a LQ moderator. My discussion within this thread has been as a LQ member. No where have I positioned my mod duties within the thread. No need for intervention when there are individuals that discuss intelligently with respect to each other.
No lose, the 'UEFI BIOS' will replace a 30 year old BIOS(16 bit) that is inhibited and does not fit with the growing needs for new technologies. Continued patching and extension of the current BIOS technology only opens doors for potential problems. BIOS extensions just create open doors. Illegal boot, Malware attacks, Virus or Trojans created by people who wish to do harm to a system to achieve mischievous results or take from the machine by illegal actions thus exposing information that may cause harm to owners of the equipment(s).
Plus having a table for the firmware will be advantages for other OS that are 'EFI/UEFI' aware and the keys are properly placed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
With this current implementation it's no more than an anti piracy tool for Microsoft that allows vendors to cripple PCs as well (mac-style).
You do not know a thing about 'UEFI BIOS'. 'Secure boot' is a controllable option of the protocol. Plus this has nothing to do with legalities from a design perspective. Control of the protocol is available via utilities. If you do not like a secured system like some Apple hardware, it is your choice to buy or not to buy. My suggestion to you is to get familiar with the protocol for 'UEFI BIOS' as pertaining to new PC based equipment before making off the wall statements. OEM vendors will control the protocol not Microsoft. Utilities are provided to maintain and control 'UEFI BIOS' by the OEM. If the OEM does not provide the utilities for their equipment it is your choice to buy or not. Most 'UEFI' based system to date do have the utilities to control. Some Netbooks use a pre-BIOS that have limited control but still these are not locked nor 'secure boot'.
BTW, 'UEFI BIOS' protocol has been in active production for some manufactures(OEM) since 2008; Dell, HP and Lenovo to name a few. I will leave it to you to find the models for each.
If the toaster can only warm food from one company, without warning it's customers, than YES.
So... if your toaster doesn't warm specific food it is manufacturer's fault that you can't install linux on it? (o_O)'
Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
A PC is NOT for Windows-only, unless it's sold for that purpose (hint: it isn't).
I fail to see what the hell windows has to do with uefi. Judging by existing info, UEFI is a bios replacement and mostly a good idea. The change seems to be roughly similar to going from 8086 CPU to 64bit in one step - only it affects motherboard instead of CPUs. Also the whole thing has been in development for 10 years. As far as I can tell, there's no reason to worry and fsf is simply being paranoid (either that or they're trying to make some noise in order to draw attention to themselves).
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.