The marketshare of Windows on ARM devices is negligible. I don't care for Secure Boot on ARM, just don't buy a Windows device if you don't want to have Secure Boot. I wonder why no one cares about locked Apple/Android devices that prevent from the user from installing Linux, but all cry out loud about Microsoft doing the exactly same thing?

I have read many articles about Secure Boot but never came across this. May it be possible that you share a source for this statement? As far as I know you only have to pay Verisign for a Microsoft key if you want to be able to install your Linux distro with Secure Boot enabled without messing with the keys in the firmware first.

It prevents your system from starting if it is compromised by a root-kit or something similar. It can not be disabled via software (except on servers using a management bus), so no malware should be able to do disable it. You need physical access to the system to disable Secure Boot and if you have physical access it is pretty easy circumvent almost any security scheme.

I do not care to pursue this pointless discussion.

Eric

1 members found this post helpful.

thanks to shining your light on to this ignorance.

meh, if you ask my opinion, micro$oft is their own biggest threat, especially windows 8, since they are pushing companies like valve to release Linux versions of their games, though I have a feeling it's still going to take some time for micro$oft to actually die since they still have a tremendous amount of inertia in the desktop market. I'm not holding my breath.
as for secure boot, as long as the firmware chip on the motherboard is flashable, the UEFI can be replaced by something else.

50th useless post in this useless thread

You have to realize that Valve's main competition with Steam is Microsoft's Live Gaming service.

You can buy, download, and play games using both services. However, Live is limited only to Windows, while Steam is an open multi-platform service.

Because more developers are starting to see the value of a an open multi-platform service, being they can get a larger amount of product to a wider market, a service like Steam has the ability to overtake Live over an extended period of time as more and more developers see the value of an open multi-platform design.

It will take significant time for Valve to beat out Microsoft, but the means to do so, as stated earlier, were hand delivered by Microsoft themselves.

Windows 8 already is getting as much love as Windows ME and Vista got... barely any except for the fanboy drones. More gamers stuck with Windows XP and probably will stick with Windows 7 more in the long run. Many more are willing to migrate to Linux based systems because of the unwillingness for Microsoft to listen to complaints and fix problems.

I think I might have said one time here or elsewhere, all Linux needs to topple Windows is users and time. Linux has the time, and with Windows 8 being as terrible as it is, it could gain the users with ease.

However, for now, it's wait and see.

Youtube Nexus 7 for Linux gaming technology (yes I consider android is Linux)
I personally think the tables are already starting to turn a few years will make a big difference.
I don't think windows or Apple will have upper hand in Tablet for too long vs Android or maybe even emerging Linux OS's.
Right now Android is already ahead of Windows and is competing with Apple.
Windows is not a threat. Bill Gates has already moved on and is more focused on Monsanto, Seed Banks, Vaccine technologies and other enterprises then Microsoft.

Android on tablets is ahead of an unreleased Windows tablet OS? Say it ain't so!

i meant windows 7, windows 8 doesnt look too good anyways.

I believe it's kewl and in vogue at the moment to deny there's any threat at all from secure boot... and then dismiss those opposed to it as FUD spreaders and conspiracy theorists...

Nothing good came from MS and something which allows MS to lock down the boot process is fishy and will be abused... this is coming from a company that doesn't exactly have the best track record for security, but is well known for it's anti-competitive practices. It would be rather naive to assume that MS are pushing this for any other reason.

I think it is considered to be cool in the Linux community to bash anything that is even slightly related to Microsoft. While I am not a fan of Microsoft I do not deny them a fair treatment.
Anyone has the right to be suspicious about Microsoft's practices, but that doesn't mean that anyone should spread FUD about topics related to Microsoft.
Spreading so called "facts" about Secure Boot that are easy to be proven wrong does make people look like Linux zealots that can't be taken serious and sometimes are outright damaging to the Linux community (I remember the Linux user that came up with the "solution" to arm himself with a large hammer and smash down shops of OEMs as a sign that he is in opposition to Secure Boot).

2 members found this post helpful.

Strawman argument.

Most "Linux users" aren't M$ bashing zealots at all. If you have any stats to prove that, prove away.

All I can say is that a lot of people have expressed concern about this secure boot feature that is designed to lock down on use of software use on certain hardware. The security benefits of this are a different issue and quite frankly, I'm sceptical. It seems Microsoft went out of the way to invent a problem for the solution they had in mind.

And from past behaviour, Microsoft has proven to be a company that cannot be trusted to care about free market competition or for the consumer's freedom of choice. Why do you wonder that we, on a Linux forum, with Linux users are worried about the hardware we may buy in the future with our hard-earned money, being locked down from using "other Operating systems"?

Anyway, fear uncertainly and doubt exists in our minds. Your explanations aren't very convincing.

1 members found this post helpful.

I did not say that most Linux users are MS bashing zealots. Unfortunately, those Linux users that are MS bashing zealots are the loudest and the ones that get the most attention on forum discussions or blog comments.

I do not wonder that people are worried. All I said is that it doesn't help the case at all to spread FUD about it, that it is more helpful to keep a clear view on the topic with getting the facts straight.

Yes, they do. But do they because we have informed ourselves from trusted sources or because we get our information from bloggers that want to get clicks on their sites and therefore have to bait people with questionable headlines and posts?

Don't get me wrong, I don't trust Microsoft either, but Secure Boot is not a thing I am afraid of.

Some of the worst zealots I have ever seen are the ones who practice the "zealotry of ignorance". This might also be called the "herd mentality", or a variety of other labels. We see this all the time---in many different contexts---and it is really part of human nature. People need to feel secure, and one way we do it is to follow the majority of those around us.

Applying this to the IT world, one sees some rather amazing behavior. I've listened to some interesting speechlets from people telling me why the IT stuff was being done a certain way---If I filtered and translated, all I really heard was "the boss said we would do it this way."

Reactions from intelligent, experienced computers users---including those that had built their own systems:

"Linux---yes, I've heard of that. Isn't it made by Red Hat?"

"Linux----hmmmm, does it have a GUI interface"

"Free?? Giving away software??---that sounds like socialism--it cannot possibly be any good."

Bottom line---I think many of us are a part of a paradox: While we can concede that MS is not all evil, we also tend to distrust anyone who starts defending them.

My opinion only: There are people--and organizations---who should stay with Microsoft. At the same time, I consider MS to be a greedy and often unethical, company. Are these 2 opinions incompatible? No

2 members found this post helpful.

i would have to half agree with cries of FUD about secure boot, because until we get verifiable information from industry insiders, or actually see 'secure boot' work then it is little more than that, however I would have to disagree that such FUD is entirely misplaced, considering micro$oft's track history, but fear not, even if we have to come up with a flash replacement for the UEFI/secure boot or a mod chip similar to what was used for a playstation or x-box, secure boot will be bypassed eventually even if it can't be turned off natively, physical access to hardware trumps any security put in place, always, without fail.

1 members found this post helpful.