A quick google shows you're right! That's some pretty bad FUD if there's nothing else to this. Is there something about Secure Boot that turning it off doesn't solve?
I just bought a laptop that came with Windows 8, after 15 minutes of frustration just trying to play around with it, I replaced it with Linux, I didn't even notice the secureboot stuff.
This isn't about you or me or any other tech-savvy person. It's about the non-technical person, and about evangelizing the use of free-as-in-freedom operating systems to them.
It used to be easy to dual-boot, but now that it's a seven-step operation to switch operating systems, that's effectively a monkey-wrench thrown into the widespread adoption of Linux.
It's a bit of a strawman, there are virtually no non-tech-savvy individuals that would ever embark on installing an alternative operating system without being influenced by, let alone without assistance from, a tech-savvy person.
Secure boot has nothing to do with it, you have to drag non-technical people kicking and screaming to do something as simple as switching their browser from IE. It's a minor inconvenience for the people that will actually be doing the work.
Yes, because when you're trying to get your non-technical friends and family to get used to Linux, they will be REALLY keen on going into UEFI to disable-reenable-disable-again etc. to switch between operating systems, whereas it was a simple keystroke up until recently.
IIRC, couldn't you run Windows 8 without boot authentication? I believe there was a control panel option for this, and after you turn it off, GRUB should be the only thing you need.
First, Windows 8 runs fine with secure boot disabled, so there no need to "disable-reenable-disable-again etc. to switch between operating systems".
Second, how many folks that are able to install and configure Linux are unable to turn a setting off in the UEFI menu?
Third, you need to balance this difficulty against the problem of bootkit malware across the PC ecosystem. Why should the hundreds of millions of technically not savvy not be protected from bootkits by default?
Is there a way to make it less complicated for Linux users while still maintaining the security that Secure Boot provides?
> "Is there a way to make it less complicated for Linux users while still maintaining the security that Secure Boot provides?"
Yes. It's called a PC with Linux preinstalled. Or just a Mac.
The only PC I can think of that isn't just a rebrand or a really poorly designed one is the XPS 13, and that doesn't fit my needs currently (awful 16:9 aspect ratio). So, I bought a MacBook Air instead, and I'm running Linux Mint alongside OS X without any problems.
I love the phrasing "ARM device" as opposed to Windows RT. Somehow the largest selling "ARM Devices" i.e iPads are not blamed for having locked bootloaders. But on a barely selling platform, suddenly it's a huge deal.
Who are you criticizing exactly? The article is specifically about Window's Secure Boot, so it doesn't make much sense to bring iPads and other devices into it.
It's about microsoft insisting that the only pre-loaded encryption key is theirs, to the exclusion of all other encryption keys. It's this exclusionary practice that's the problem, not the implementation per se.
>It's about microsoft insisting that the only pre-loaded encryption key is theirs, to the exclusion of all other encryption keys.
Please, stop the FUD, it just makes people look totally ignorant. Microsoft does not insist that in any shape or form. If you have a reference, please share it. But don't go around spreading falsehood.
>It's about microsoft insisting that the only pre-loaded encryption key is theirs, to the exclusion of all other encryption keys.
Bullshit, they do no such thing. The OEMs are perfectly able and willing to preload other keys. It's the community that is unable to step up to having a signing infrastructure. Why don't you contribute to the effort of a signing mechanism for Linux instead of just spreading anti-Microsoft lies?
Edit: I see that my post is getting downvoted while the factually incorrect parent post is not. This feels like /r/Linux, where facts are not welcome and where FUD gets voted up.
> Edit: I see that my post is getting downvoted while the factually incorrect parent post is not. This feels like /r/Linux, where facts are not welcome and where FUD gets voted up.
I have a variety of negative responses to this, ranging from the apathetic, to the contradictory, to the ad hominem. I would probably not have had the same reaction had you omitted the "Edit:", although your description of the situation is perhaps oversimplified.
Holding factual accuracy as the highest virtue is the blessing and curse of the tech world, and as such it may be forgivable. How you are choosing to express yourself, on the other hand, would seem to have a great deal to do with how well those comments are received.
If any of those were to be made open source, MS would effectively corner the open source office market as well. I'm not holding my breath though.
I'm actually shocked at how quickly the Microsoft stack in my daily work has now gone down in use from where it was only about 5 years ago. With the exception of Office as in above and Windows for Photoshop (almost daily use) and Visual Studio (some projects still need it), the rest is entirely Open Source from OS and on. Currently I'm using Mint and Debian with OpenBSD on the side.
As much as people bash MS for all sorts of (well deserved) things, the bottom line is that they do get a lot of things right. It's not just political wrangling that allow them to stay in business, obviously, since if the products are really lacking too much, they'd be hurting too. I do think the culture in the company is changing, hopefully for the better.
Edit: I think, by and large Windows 8 is a mistake, but not in the way it was designed. The way it was marketed. Win 8 makes sense on mobile/touch devices and no where else. And that's all I have to say about that. Hopefully, they don't plan on keeping the trend into the next version of Windows, but we'll see.
Even though joysticks are arguably a better means of control, there's a reason cars still have steering wheels.
This is what is so hard for many FOSS fans to understand.
The ecosystem has only expanded to the extent big corporations are willing to invest money on it.
If IBM, Google and others had not invested into FOSS as a means to help them sell services, most likely the situation would be quite similar to the mid 80's, in what concerns software development tools.
In the markets where you cannot sell services, it is very hard to make a living from FOSS.
The point is, only corporations pay for FOSS in form of SaaS, consulting, support contracts or trainings.
Usually the only way consumers pay for FOSS is when buying hardware with FOSS inside.
However if you plan to create a company developing products that are software based, where the average developer salary would be around € 1500 netto, quite normal in many European countries, it will be very hard to keep the company afloat when targeting markets outside what I mentioned above.
A wheel is a far better method for controlling a car than a joystick. Rotating a wheel offers far more precision than pushing a stick.
Fighter jets need to make rapid, abrupt moves, but their movements are nowhere near as precise or well timed as a Formula 1 driver where turning tens of milliseconds too late or a few degrees too tightly can completely ruin your lap if it's in a critical section. Precision flying, while requiring a very high level of coordination, is not nearly as demanding as trying to drive Monaco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_de_Monaco) at race speeds in traffic.
Windows 8 is a joystick for what should be a wheel.
"I would love for anyone else reading this to add their own ideas on how they think Microsoft can help the Open Source Community."
I'll bite: they could stop funding (either officially or sneakily) FUD reports with totally fake TCO advantaging Windows and painting Linux under a bad light.
IIRC people have found law proposals at the European Commission (or European Parliament, I don't remember: I think they're drafted at the EC and reviewed for approval at the EP) written in Word documents that still containing past-history / revisions and the EFF or someone else from the good side realized that the first version of that Word document was actually drafter by someone working for Microsoft.
Then it's not a big secret that people deciding on which technology to use in big companies (and big state owned companies) are getting bribes in the form of illegal kickbacks from technology vendors (IBM was --still is?-- famous for that).
So if they want to help OSS for a start I'd suggest stopping the FUD reports with fake TCOs and put an end to these crazy illegal kickbacks given to influence deciders' choices.
Now to be honest: I'm an "ABM" (Anything But Microsoft: I'd sell my soul to, say, Google, if that means Microsoft would disappear once and for all) but I feel a bit sorry for MS. I think that hadn't they been using these shaddy tactics since decades they'd already be much more irrelevant than they already are today.
(P.S: girlfriend bought a Samsung Android phone today for work so she can synch her GMail professional contacts with her phone and sister in law bought a MacBook, life is good ; )
>Make the ability to add personal keys to secure boot a requirement for having a Windows logo
Sigh, that's already the requirement.
If I had a cent for every poster that is ignorant about secure boot but rants against it as if they are a guru, I'd be very rich. Why so many tech savvy folks are clueless when it comes to Secure Boot, I will never know. These facts are known from over a year, but the FUDsters have succeeded in fudging the facts and spreading mistruths.
Gosh, ARM devices are different from x86 ones. Almost all ARM devices are vendor locked. If you are interested in knowing how to do this on a Surface Pro (A.K.A a x86 device), I can help you out.
To add your keys? While some entities have found ways to circumvent the "secure boot" method, I never saw a way to add my own keys to my Dell laptop so I could sign my own bootloader.
The problem isn't just the relationship that Microsoft has with OSS, but with developers in general. As developer in their "ecosystem" for years, I've come to the conclusion that the majority of the Redmond management is totally out of touch with the third party developers. Crap like Windows 8, "flat" interfaces, abandonment of APIs, NIH, reinventing the wheel, ignoring requests and feedback, etc, doesn't make it better.
I think that you can say this about Apple too. Here's my rewrite of your statement:
"The problem isn't just the relationship that Apple has with OSS, but with developers in general. As developer in their "ecosystem" for years, I've come to the conclusion that the majority of the Cupertino management is totally out of touch with the third party developers. Crap like Mac OS X, "round" interfaces, abandonment of APIs, NIH, reinventing the wheel, ignoring requests and feedback, etc, doesn't make it better."
My mindset is that any mainstream, large vendor is going to have these traits.
... STOP the SecureBoot madness!
reply