First, a reference: microsoft-will-take-nearly-a-year-to-finish-patching-new-0-day-secure-boot-bug

In the process of patching this, from what I gather, every current UEFI system will be made unbootable because the 'F' bit - the firmware - will get changed.

Linux only users can ignore this and all is well. Those trying to install linux in place of windows face an awkward time until distros get on top of this, if my reading of this is correct. In fact, if I enabled this May's win11 update somehow, nothing would boot - period. It's as well I never use windows.

FTR, I haven't downloaded this May's update yet! Neither do I intend to, until I know more. I would be interested in hearing thoughts on this because to me, this looks like 2012/13 all over again, when nobody really had a clue about UEFI.

In my case, windows 11 is a dispensable commodity, but it may have some value to another some day. So if I can keep it, I will. But this will also prevent all unsupported versions of windows from booting. And linux booting may have to change somewhat through no fault of it's own, which is irritating.

I'd be interested in hearing what you guys know that I don't.

It is not as if this is the first time Microsoft issued and update that shot them in the foot. They often issue updates that impact the booting of other operating systems, and sometimes Windows itself. IT is almost expected behavior now, as it should be since they have been doing it for 30 years or more.

I gave up multi-booting Window long ago. I multi-boot many other operating systems, but not Windows. Extra hardware is cheaper than the cost of the time it would take me to deal with their errors and outright sabatage.

2 members found this post helpful.

Yeah, same here. Anything which must be done in Windows gets done in VMs here. Keeps it sandboxed with the added benefit that crap like this doesn't affect me.

MS has always tried to prevent people just installing another O/S, it's why we get so many problems.....they want to 'own' your computer.

But the extra hardware comes with Windows already on it (unless you buy it online from someone like Zareason), so how could you ever install Linux?

OK, I hear you all. I have the "Bury your head in the sand" opinion, and the "Avoid windows at all costs" opinion too.

Now I asked (post #1): I'm still listening.....

Every single machine I ever purchased (other than two I built form parts) came with a Microsoft operating system. every single one I reconfigured and loaded something better onto quickly. (Most recent laptops by purchasing a new SSD and replacing the main drive as one step, saving that original drive in case i need to fire up a Microsoft OS again on it.)

The only hardware I have managed that was totally licked down was IBM hardware that ran only AIX, and Cell Phones.

Can we please move to future tense and stop talking about past tense?

From M$ Support https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/...3-b3ff139f832d

Heh. I wouldn't like to be running LFS right now.

You can't run LFS until you have built it, and that requires a running Linux system. So you will already have a working bootloader. The LFS book does include instructions for building and installing GRUB2 but many users don't need to include this chapter. I certainly never did.

My past complete indifference to Microsoft's boot shenanigans will continue into the future.

It's simple. Dual booting is not the future. It's not 1999 any more. If you must use Windows, use it in a Virtual Machine. I don't know why you're not listening.

As far as I know, it is still mandatory for manufacturers to enable you disable Secure Boot. So do it, boot Linux and be happy.

1 members found this post helpful.

If I was using windows, that's what I'd do - use a VM. I am not using windows.

But I want to keep a copy of windows functioning because I have a lot of friends who are technical lightweights and who blanch and freeze at the sight of anything that isn't windows. So windows can come in handy for them, because it's boring me sitting on their shoulder telling them how to do stuff in linux. It's a horror story for them. I can't set them in a VM either.

If I ever go back to Electronics, there's a few heavyweight ≥15G software suites for chip designing and I could concievably end up using one of those. Their linux packages vary in quality, last seen. You choose a chip, and that chooses your package. I just could concievably end up having to code it in windows.

Your confusion may be that you think only Windows can host virtual guests? That is dramatically not so! I use VirtualBox and QEMU on Linux to run virtual guests running Windows, ReactOS, FreeDOS, Kolibrios, and several versions of Linux. VirtualBox does depend upon your hardware supporting virtual CPU functions. Both requite faster hardware if you want performance. For them I would not dual boot, just keep a platform for them that is dedicated to Windows and subject to all of the Microsoft breakage. Perhaps grab an extra drive so you can hardware/swap between Windows and something more sane by swapping the storage device. My platforms mostly support booting from USB, so I can run some live Linux images from my Ventoy devices in persistence mode to run a different Linux. It sounds like that hardware might not support USB booting, or I would recommend that to you.I like working FreePascal on Linux, but I am sticking with rather small projects. If you code that and use FOSS licensing, I would like to see that work. ;-)

I never ran a VM under windows - ever. I did run a windows vm under a linux host. I don't use windows now. I wanted to keep a copy of windows for my linux-allergic and computer-ignorant friends. Can I be clearer?

EDIT: The second platform dedicated to windoze is probably easier than arguing with you lot. I have such a machine.

1 members found this post helpful.