LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General
User Name
Password
Linux - General This Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 02-27-2013, 06:58 AM   #16
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269

Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
Please, people, before ranting get your facts straight. Microsoft is not stealing your hardware, in fact any x86(_64) hardware that is Windows 8 Logo certified must have the options to disable Secure Boot and to add and remove keys to the databases at the user's will, so they are actively enabling the owner of the hardware to have total control.

It is that simple: You have a problem with Secure Boot or just don't have a need for it? Then just disable it, you have that possibility if you look out that you are buying Window 8 Logo certified hardware, but you may lack that possibility if you don't.
Except for ARM phones, of course, where you can't disable it. So, it's NOT that simple. The trend it clear. They will eventually lock out x86 as well. Or maybe x86 will just disappear and you'll be surprised to find yourself locked-in.
 
Old 02-27-2013, 11:08 AM   #17
comet.berkeley
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: California
Distribution: Slackware current
Posts: 146

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
...any x86(_64) hardware that is Windows 8 Logo certified must have the options to disable Secure Boot and to add and remove keys to the databases at the user's will...
And why exactly must x86/amd64 hardware have the option to disable Secure Boot?

ARM hardware for Windows 8 must have Secure Boot and there is no way of disabling it.

Who makes these rules?
 
Old 02-27-2013, 11:52 AM   #18
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
Another thing to consider is the fact that M$ originally planned to lock in x86 as well, but Intel and AMD wouldn't have it. Instead of saying it will never happen, I would consider ourselves lucky to have companies that still stand up against this evil. How much longer tho ?
 
Old 02-27-2013, 06:39 PM   #19
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 15,438
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4001Reputation: 4001Reputation: 4001Reputation: 4001Reputation: 4001Reputation: 4001Reputation: 4001Reputation: 4001Reputation: 4001Reputation: 4001Reputation: 4001
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
Except for ARM phones, of course, where you can't disable it. So, it's NOT that simple. The trend it clear.
The trend is clear, Apple is trying to take over the desktop with vendor lock in, they have already started with locking their ARM phones and tablets. In the ARM space almost everybody does it, but people complain only about Microsoft doing it on their ARM machines with about what, 2% market share?

Quote:
Originally Posted by comet.berkeley
And why exactly must x86/amd64 hardware have the option to disable Secure Boot?
Because it is made mandatory by the Windows 8 Logo certification program for x86(_64).
Quote:
ARM hardware for Windows 8 must have Secure Boot and there is no way of disabling it.
Because it is made mandatory by the Windows 8 Logo certification program for ARM that Secure Boot must not be disabled .
Quote:
Who makes these rules?
It is the Windows 8 Logo certification. Who do you think makes those rules?

Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H
Another thing to consider is the fact that M$ originally planned to lock in x86 as well, but Intel and AMD wouldn't have it.
That sounds interesting, do you have a link for me?

Last edited by TobiSGD; 02-27-2013 at 06:42 PM.
 
Old 02-28-2013, 03:20 AM   #20
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
That sounds interesting, do you have a link for me?
There was an article posted at the time the requirements were being discussed. I don't know if I can find the exact one.

Here is something similar:
http://news.techeye.net/software/mic...er-secure-boot
 
Old 02-28-2013, 06:35 AM   #21
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 15,438
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4001Reputation: 4001Reputation: 4001Reputation: 4001Reputation: 4001Reputation: 4001Reputation: 4001Reputation: 4001Reputation: 4001Reputation: 4001Reputation: 4001
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
There was an article posted at the time the requirements were being discussed. I don't know if I can find the exact one.

Here is something similar:
http://news.techeye.net/software/mic...er-secure-boot
This is about ARM and does not mention at all that Intel or AMD have prevented Microsoft from doing the same on x86(_64).
 
Old 02-28-2013, 07:06 AM   #22
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 6,928
Blog Entries: 51

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
MS will have rendered us ARMless.
 
Old 02-28-2013, 11:23 PM   #23
comet.berkeley
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: California
Distribution: Slackware current
Posts: 146

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Okay enough of the theoretical discussion here.

Here is a Fellow in the Slackware forum with a brand new Samsung laptop loaded with Windows 8

He wants to dual boot Slackware alongside Windows 8.

What do you tell him to complete this installation successfully?

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ty-4175452162/

I would recommend that he boot and use kernel 3.7.10 or later as it has the Samsung patches for not bricking the box.

But what else does he need to know/do?
 
Old 03-01-2013, 02:05 AM   #24
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
You can brick a Samsung laptop from Window$ too. It's not a Linux issue.
 
Old 03-01-2013, 02:29 AM   #25
Randicus Draco Albus
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2011
Location: Sitting in front of my computer.
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 1,009
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 254Reputation: 254Reputation: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by comet.berkeley View Post
With it's monopoly power, Microsoft forces machine makers to have Secure UEFI in the BIOS for Windows 8.

And they force all open source vendors to get a Microsoft signature in order to boot under Secure UEFI.

This change makes it harder to "dual" boot Linux/BSD/etc with Secure UEFI turned on.

This is one more reason for new users to stay away from Linux/BSD/etc.

Linux should never have to depend on Microsoft in order to boot up a system.

This is bad for Linux.
Is it bad? Or could it be good? If the option of dual-booting is removed, those who truly want to use Linux or BSD may have more incentive to switch, instead of clinging to the comfort of Windows, while also using (or should I say testing) Linux. So it can be argued that not being able to dual-boot could harm Linux, and it can also be argued that it could help. Who is right?
 
Old 03-01-2013, 08:59 AM   #26
jens
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Debian, Slackware, Fedora
Posts: 1,190

Rep: Reputation: 159Reputation: 159
Blog post from Matthew Garrett on this issue:

Quote:
It's fairly straightforward to boot a UEFI Secure Boot system using something like Shim or the Linux Foundation's loader, and for distributions using either the LF loader or the generic version of Shim that's pretty much all you need to care about. The physically-present end user has had to explicitly install new keys or hashes, and that means that you no longer need to care about Microsoft's security policies or (assuming there's no exploitable flaws in the bootloader itself) fear any kind of revocation.

But what about if you're a distribution that cares about booting without the user having to install keys? There's several reasons to want that (convenience for naive users, ability to netboot, that kind of thing), but it has the downside that your system can now be used as an attack vector against other operating systems. Do you care about that? It depends how you weigh the risks. First, someone would have to use your system to attack another. Second, Microsoft would have to care enough to revoke your signature. The first hasn't happened yet, so we have no real idea how likely the second is. However, it doesn't seem awfully unlikely that Microsoft would be willing to revoke a distribution signature if that distribution were being used to attack Windows.

...
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/23400.html
 
Old 03-02-2013, 08:43 PM   #27
comet.berkeley
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: California
Distribution: Slackware current
Posts: 146

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Here is another possible solution.

Older systems without secure boot allow for the installation of Windows 8.

So why not simply turn off secure boot in the BIOS?

Does this work for dual booting?

(But Before doing anything, be sure to create system backup DVDs to be able to re-install the Windows operating system if it is clobbered...)

http://maketecheasier.com/disable-se...s-8/2013/02/25
 
Old 03-03-2013, 10:05 AM   #28
jens
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Debian, Slackware, Fedora
Posts: 1,190

Rep: Reputation: 159Reputation: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by comet.berkeley View Post
Does this work for dual booting?
Sure.
You either run everything in a Secure Boot environment or nothing at all.
 
Old 03-03-2013, 04:20 PM   #29
comet.berkeley
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: California
Distribution: Slackware current
Posts: 146

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position

is the title of this article from ZDNet last Wednesday:

http://www.zdnet.com/torvalds-clarif...on-7000011918/

Last edited by comet.berkeley; 03-03-2013 at 04:22 PM. Reason: change fonts
 
Old 03-03-2013, 05:14 PM   #30
rkelsen
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2004
Distribution: slackware
Posts: 1,748

Rep: Reputation: 159Reputation: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
MS will have rendered us ARMless.
Quite literally. I will never buy anything which has been locked down.

I am thankful that my new laptop doesn't have "secure boot"... although this was more luck than skill, since I didn't do that much research before buying it. Four weeks ago I didn't even know that "secure boot" existed.

Next time, though, I will be doing my homework throroughly to ensure that whatever I buy doesn't have "secure boot" or anything remotely resembling it. I don't care if this "feature" can be disabled or not. I'm not buying it.

Last edited by rkelsen; 03-03-2013 at 05:32 PM.
 
  


Reply

Tags
fud, kernel, linus, microsoft, red hat, uefi, uefi-monkeys


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Linus on Linux: The Linus Torvalds Interview Part 2 LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 04-27-2009 01:00 PM
LXer: Linus on Linux: The Linus Torvalds Interview Part 1 LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 04-23-2009 03:10 PM
Linus Torvalds rakris General 1 11-14-2006 02:07 AM
Linus Torvalds linuxzouk General 7 05-16-2004 10:17 PM
Linus Torvalds log General 7 02-13-2003 08:21 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:01 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration