LXer: Microsoft dragging its feet on Linux Secure Boot fix
Published at LXer:
The Linux Foundation's promised workaround that will allow Linux to boot on Windows 8 PCs has yet to clear Microsoft's code certification process, although the exact reason for the hold-up remains unclear. As The Reg reported previously, the Secure Boot feature of the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) found on modern Windows 8 PCs will only allow an OS to boot if its code has been digitally signed with a key obtained from Microsoft. Read More... |
I bet they will never release it, and I hope so too.
|
So you don't want that Secure Boot is available to any Linux distro? Would you mind to post your reasons for that?
|
Yes. Because this is not the right solution. You should NOT need M$'s approval to boot another OS. They should have made a deal with hardware manufacturers not with M$.
Going through M$ gives them control. They can revoke the key anytime they want. If it isn't done this way, then people will refuse to buy into Secure Boot until it supports more OSs properly. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Then why does M$ have to approve the software ? I don't want M$ involved in the process. You don't deal with the devil.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All we can do is wait and see. I doubt that anything bad will happen.
|
Quote:
Maybe I'm off base but I (think) that the devil only needs an opportunity and Microsoft is providing just that tool for the devil to use. Again this is why I have not installed Fedora on my laptop and it's not because I haven't educated myself on the "UEFI Secure Boot" issue. I have written about 5 to 7 pages of documentation from webpages just to try to understand this whole thing. It's still not clear to me what to do either before or after the install of a new disto- |
Quote:
Quote:
I would like to know why anyone is blaming Microsoft, but no one blames AMD, IBM or Intel. They all are partners on the UEFI forum, they all have a voice when it comes to discussing new specifications, so why does Microsoft get all the hate, but none of the other partners? |
Quote:
I don't get why AMD, IBM or Intel is not in the 'blame' afterall they are assisting Microsoft to develop and manufacturer the product/merchandise. I would imagine that the contributing partners are receiving compensation and possibly; kickbacks from the Microsoft Corporation. As time passes things we don't know yet might be reveled by those other contributors/partners. |
Originally, M$ wanted to make it so that Secure Boot couldn't be turned off like on ARM, but Intel and some of the other companies wouldn't have it. Eventually I think that Secure Boot will be mandatory.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:43 PM. |