I have the feeling that you still don't get it. Again, this is neither against UEFI nor against Secure Boot. This is just a petition to let mainboard manufacturers know that we want an option to disable secure boot, if we need to do that for whatever reason. I don't give anything about how many mainboards ASUS will produce with UEFI, as long as there is an option to disable Secure Boot (which of course is currently not implemented).

I'm naturally suspicious of anything Microsoft is in favour of. If I buy computer hardware, I want to be able to do anything with it that I want, without interference from a software company whose products I don't use.

"Be able to disable secure boot" and "be able to install any OS you want" are not the same thing.

Hi,

Then you happen to fall into the group that knows nothing about the 'UEFI BIOS'. I for one showed the option(s) earlier in this thread that disable is included. Gnu/Linux will benefit by being able to include secure keys for firmware within a 'UEFI BIOS'.

It is the OEM vendor not Microsoft who will control these options. You do not have to buy the Vendors product line if the product does not meet your requirements. The BIOS that have been checked do provide the means to enter and disable/enable 'Secure Boot'. People who throw out 'FUD' just extend or compound rumors.

I really do not care to sign a useless petition that will get no where and is not necessary!

I used ASUS as an example since that manufacture happens to be a leader in the field for board manufacturing. You do not have to buy the product, it is everyone's choice to ignore or support the 'UEFI BIOS' protocol.

At some point in time your motherboard is going to become out dated, fail or just plainly will not function with newer subsystems. You will purchase that new motherboard and enter the 'UEFI BIOS' to disable the secure boot (if necessary). That new 'UEFI BIOS' will have a trusted signature(Keys) for other OS(Gnu/Linux). If not then use the vendor MB utilities to introduce the firmware and certify the keys for the new firmware. This is not new;Above quote does show the utility of 'UEFI' for other OS, not just Microsoft. So I guess petitions for mandatory exclusion could be generated by other uninformed users of those systems. Please notice the reply to Red Hat from Microsoft in the above quote.

Here is another good reference for users that want to understand 'UEFI';UEFI-Just How Important It Really Is

Information is out there for users who want to be informed instead of listening to rumors and FUD. I have not provided links to white papers but boring tech information(white papers) can be had. Look at the Intel search white papers UEFI to start with. Be sure to use their glossary & links.

You showed that that option is included in the protocol, but not that it will be proper implemented. Secure boot is an optional part of the protocol, so are the options to disable it.

Yes, I stated that we want to let the hardware manufacturers know that we want the option, I did not say that we want it from Microsoft.

You are right, I most likely will buy a new motherboard in December, and it will be an ASUS (I can get them really cheap, since i work for an OEM PC-manufacturer that mostly builds its PCs with ASUS mainboards). But doesn't this whole signing thing means that I do have to do the signing everytime I get an update for my bootloader or I experiment with building new kernels? And what is with the newbie that wants to give Linux a try and doesn't know anything about Secure Boot and signing?

Again, this is not against UEFI (you still seem to think that), this is just a way to let manufacturers know that we want that option.

If it is optional part of protocol, then you're free to only buy hardware that implements it. It is same thing as having extra hardware capability - for example, some motherboards have multiple GPU or CPU slots, while some other motherboards have only one of each. However, nobody launches petition to ensure that ALL motherboards must have two GPU slots for some reason. It is same thing as with GPU cards (haven't seen a petition to enforce all cards to support geometry shaders), audio cards (haven't see a petition to make all cards support non-44100 audio buffers), etc. If it is an optional feature, then buy hardware that has it feature - if you need it. I see no reason to make a fuss about it.

You are right, I am able to determine that the protocol is implemented properly before buying it. Just because I am already a Linux user and have enough knowledge about the OS and the hardware. But you are totally ignoring the Windows user with his Dell or whatever OEM machine that wants to give Linux a try and may be not able to do that easily, just because that disabling option isn't implemented on their machines.
I personally think that that is reason enough for the petition, but YMMV. If you don't like that petition than simply don't sign it. I have signed and I think I have made my reasons clear enough.

Let's say I have a toaster. One day I want to install a linux on it. The toaster does not support linux. Is this a toaster manufacturer's fault?

If a user wants windows machine, he'll get windows machine. If he wants a windows machine with ability to install different OS in the future, this is a different product and he needs to do some research. If he didn't do research, it is his fault, and he'll have to either get different product, or alter(hack) current one. The petition is pointless. I don't remember anybody complaining that they're unable to install linux onto their symbian phone or something. And people don't complain when they discover that their car does not have ability to fly like helicopter. Same thing applies to computer hardware. If hardware always had a capability, it doesn't mean that you're entitled to always have it in all future products. IMO, that's just common sense...

And to tell the hardware manufacturer that we still want that feature in the future is not common sense?

Keep "Microsoft," or any other bugaboo, out of the picture ... and, as a general rule, don't sign petitions.

It is a perfectly legitimate, and important, hardware feature to be able to set up your system so that someone cannot readily reboot it into an operating system of their own choosing, e.g. a rogue system that won't obey the security restrictions you want that machine to enforce. You may or may not be able to ensure that the night-operator or the hardware repair-man is not an industrial spy, but at least you can make life a little bit more difficult for them if they are.

The hardware features that you speak of are well-known, have been around for a long time, and are fully supported by Linux, too, because after all it is perfectly reasonable to expect that Linux might be the system that you don't want that industrial spy to covertly replace.

Frankly, it gets a little tiring to keep hearing Microsoft being painted as the goon ... because, fun though it may be, they're really not. They're just a very successful software development company that has been very successful at selling a system that really sucks.

Hi,

Some of your points have some validity but manufactures are going to build for trends/demands/purchases not petitions. Popular OEM equipment buyers will dictate the quality and type built for their market.

You can send petitions to manufactures and the petition will end up in file 13. If the weight of the petition aligns with product demand then possibly some attention will be given. Let's say you get 1 million signers to this petition, as compared to the total users of computer hardware. Drop in the bucket!

Everything that I have read to date assures that 'UEFI' is not a conspiracy but solid way of insuring the BIOS protocol will support long into the future. The old BIOS has been hacked to the limits and still falls short when one wants to use modern hardware. OLD BIOS was designed for 16 bit, we are now in a 64 bit world and growing.

Reminds me when people were introduced to automatic transmissions. Advantages for using a stick was the stop gap then. People had grown to use the clutch/stick. Damn automatics could not do what I can do with a stick mentality abounded. Common people started purchasing automatics, designs improved. We now have the best of both worlds, automatic and slip controls. Positive traction control without worry of a clutch plus add in 4 wheel drive on demand. I drive a tractor with a wet double clutch design but prefer the hydrostatic transmission tractor whenever doing barnyard work. But for true power transfer the old FORD F3000 will out perform the hydrostatic. The old FORD is not used as much as the hydrostatic.

The analogy above is just like the BIOS, 'UEFI pre-BIOS' and 'UEFI BIOS' we are speaking about. Please remember Linux has been aware of 'EFI' since 2000. The 3.x Linux kernel now has 'UEFI', so it is going to happen. Learn to use it on the new motherboard. Sure 'UEFI' is new to the public but Vendors, manufactures and OEM are not going to shot their-self in the foot.

Lately I have noticed members that are using a piece of OEM that have ''UEFI BIOS'. Problems of booting and not having proper hardware firmware. Some models by HP, Dell and Lenovo are just a few that were built after 2008 that have 'UEFI BIOS'. Users will stumble until they learn how to use things properly. No different then with the Old BIOS, Buyer be aware! Learn to work and understand how to setup the software & hardware.

No, because manufacturer's won't listen. You represent minority. Manufacturer cares about majority. Demands of majority are chaotic and unpredictable. Even if your demands will be taken in account, they will be last to implement, or won't be implemented at all (if profit from your features won't surpass their development cost). Another problem is location of petition and validity of result. How do you think manufacturer is going to notice petition? And what is the reason to think results are valid and weren't manipulated? I don't take internet petitions seriously after entire internet has failed to make Uwe Boll resign. If internet petition couldn't do THAT, then you have zero chances with your UEFI complaints.

I think you'll find manufacturers will take notice of EU rulings if it's deemed that secure boot will potentially give Microsoft an unfair advantage over other systems... It would seem that although MS may say that's not what's intended, in reality there's a good chance that's how it will work out.

how many times do we have to say it? this isn't about BIOS vs EVI vs UEFI, if that were the case it would be a non-issue, it's about the 'secure boot' option that allows unsigned code to be prevented from being executed at the firmware level, which means unsigned boot loaders/kernels need not apply, unless this feature can be switched off either by jumper on the motherboard or a toggle option in the firmware setup menu then there is gonna be trouble for installing Linux on such systems, end of story.

Hi,

How many times do we have to tell you it can be disabled? 'Secure Boot' as an option is part of the 'UEFI' which can be enabled/disabled. You my friend have no clue about 'UEFI! Microsoft has stated for Win/8 the default should be 'Secure Boot' enabled. That directive is to the OEM. As a user you will have the option to disable 'secure boot' if the OEM provides the selectivity(which to date tools are available). If the Hardware you are going to purchase is locked by the OEM then petition that OEM or do not purchase the equipment. That simple! Buyer be aware! Apple has been using 'UEFI', no problem.

This petition plus worries are unfounded or necessary, plus being based on rumor & FUD. Petitioning manufactures will go nowhere. Just a waste of time. Most will laugh at the petition since they know the 'UEFI' is a protocol of the future. Learn too use it and prepare for this to happen.