Lawyer hopeful of success with secure boot complaint
Hi,
Apparently not everyone is happy in Spain about 'UEFI' & 'Secure Boot' protocols. Plus it seems they really do not know what they are talking about when it comes to 'UEFI' or 'Secure Boot' as related to Microsoft Win/8 or doing a Linux install on same hardware; Quote:
For this lawyer & group, based on their logic then a complaint against any manufacture can/could be made . If you have a smart refrigerator with a OS that will allow the owner to keep a update DB for contents then a user should be able to load any OS or allow multifunctional system to allow the same control. BS! This attorney even spoke about ARM being locked. Not all Arm devices are locked, just the ones using MS OS or ones that are product specific. Don't buy that hardware period! Personally I have several ARM devices that are not locked and will never be unless I wish to protect the device & system(BTW, a personal choice). This ambulance chaser is throwing a complaint at MS without thoroughly knowing the facts or understanding the 'UEFI' protocol and 'Secure Boot' subset as pertaining to closed and open source. FUD! Just another money chaser to get something from a deep pocket defendant. I truly hope someone enlightens this lawyer & group. |
I think it is a lost case. Many other example of such practices already exist and have sustained in court.
|
Secure boot is nothing but a jail to locked every OS out especially linux. Why because Microsoft is AFRAID OF LINUX. MS such a bunch of stupid freakin' cowards!
|
Member response
Hi,
Quote:
|
You tell him he knows nothing about it, then redirect him to the horse's mouth - the very people pushing for it? Restricted boot, as it should be known, gives little advantage to anyone except Microsoft and its cronies while loping off a large chunk of freedom from anyone unluckly enough to buy one of these such systems without realizing what they are in for.
Just as it's nearly impossible to get a machine today that doesn't come pre-infected with Windows, soon you'll be at a loss to find a computer without this 'feature'. Every computer in the room I'm in now (5) had Windows pre-loaded initially, and most still sport their "Windows Approved/Certified" sticker. I've been told you can order a Windows-less system online but I don't think a person should have to have one shipped from three states over simply because the ones in the local store are all locked up with Windows. Adding UEFI will put another layer of work to done before a system is usable for a linux user. First unlock the UEFI, if it will even be possible, which remains to be seen: Quote:
then wipe off Windows, then get down to installing linux. Just like the new-computer-without-Windows is a rare animal today, the new-computer-with-removable-Windows will be extinct tomarrow. And you'll pay for it too, to be sure. Just as we pay for copies of Windows that we never use soon we could be paying for a boot setup that will be disabled in short order (again, provided that's even possible). UEFI makes little sense in a linux environment: Quote:
According to the time stamp on the file, I last updated my kernel a few weeks ago. Many, if not most, linux users are always updating and changing their systems. So I'll be ever-so-helpfully locked out from booting my system next kernel update? Boot malware had its hayday back when the 80286 processor was cutting edge. Unless I'm missing a sudden flood of such security threats that haven't appeared in the news, UEFI is attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist and hasn't existed for a long time. Oddly enough, I'm sure Windows 8 and whatever Windows after that which will make use of restricted boot will grant Administrator level access to nearly anyone and everyone like Windows has done since its beginnings. So much for security. Recall WGA and signed DLL's and surely someone will find a way around restricted boot. You say buyer beware but in a monoply there is no other choice: restricted boot further cements that monopoly while disguised as a security feature. Thus, it becomes not what you'll buy but whether a linux user will be able to buy at all. The lawyer is right to call out Microsoft on its latest travesties. |
Member response
Hi,
The reference wiki does provide useful information along with 'UEFI Home'. Microsoft does not control either. If you read some of the information you would know that a Windows certified Win/8 label will allow a user to modify or disable 'Secure Boot'. So where is the problem? Possibly just people who do not understand or just spew 'FUD' or speculation. You can enter the 'UEFI' disable 'Secure Boot' and then proceed to install other OS. If you wish to use 'UEFI' then you must provide 'KEK' and proper boot methodology. 'UEFI' is not extending or allowing a Microsoft monopoly. Microsoft can use 'UEFI' and 'Secure Boot' protocol (which can be & must be allowed to disable 'Secure Boot') without the fear of a user's system being violated. I did not say "You say buyer beware" but "Buyer be aware"! Big difference in the two statements! Please quote properly and accurately. A change in the way machines are controlled is long over due. BIOS has been hacked or enhanced so much and 'UEFI' protocol does provide users with better control of their systems without BIOS restrictions or limitation(s) for future designs. |
I fully expect that the market will take its course, and do so rather quickly and punitively...
It's ironic to watch Microsoft going through a "Wang experience." Going through the same thing that Lou Gertsner rescued IBM from, as recounted in his excellent book, Who Says Elephants Can't Dance? At one time, Wang Corporation had a 90% market share in dedicated word-processing machines. Even IBM's DisplayWriter couldn't touch them. Every law-office in the world paid thousands of dollars a month in rent to Wang. They laughed derisively at the IBM PC ... that little toy ... There is a need for secure booting. But it has to involve a user-installable key and cannot involve any motherboard redesigns. It also can't involve a cryptographic key that is owned by a single corporation. The market's dubious demand for this feature is not met by this half-baked incarnation, and Microsoft will soon find itself forced – not by the courts, but by the market – for all of the bullet-pointed reasons I've listed above. If Microsoft Corporation had any sense whatsoever, they would stop thinking of themselves as "the Windows company," and exercise the technology base that they already have, to publish Microsoft Office .. the full thing, the real thing .. to every existing operating system platform available: Windows, OS/X, Linux. Office is their standard-bearer now, not Windows. Gates read the writing on the wall, and promptly retired. Ballmer doesn't have the smarts to do that, and their board doesn't have the smarts to retire him. |
Quote:
Secure boot is a good thing if a person only intents to use windows only, but others want to explore and use other operation systems and sometimes secure boot and the OEMs don't play nice. IMHO, I don't like secure boot and I hope it gets taken out in the future... |
Quote:
sorry, but since when did MS own the hardware you and I paid for with our money? That is the real problem with this entire mess. MS has been trying to push this since winXP beta days. now they are succeeding. |
Member response
Hi,
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you have the manufactures manual or data you can follow directions as to how to implement installation. MB manufactures do provide methods to enable/disable the 'UEFI Secure Boot' via MB 'UEFI' interface. Personally I feel that 'UEFI' is long over due so as to allow future designs and that the means to provide firmware security will enhance operations of machines. 'UEFI' in some form will be around for a longer time than the original 'BIOS' so as to allow our designs not to be hampered or limited. |
has there been any further development, especially in the EU,
or even with the Spanish Linux complaint against Micro$oft?. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:07 AM. |