UEFI secure booting and the future

[xenopeek]

It's all very interesting but, what's the relation between Stallmanism and UEFI secure boot? This topic is named "UEFI secure booting and the future".

Apologies, I had remarked earlier that the FSF has not yet commented on this. We'll get serious again.

ZDNet Australia is reporting: "Linux Australia members who complained to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) about Microsoft's plans to mandate the enabling of a secure booting feature on Windows 8 machines have been told by the competition regulator that they may in fact have a case."

[altair4]

Just another post to keep everyone up to date on things being said on the web about all this: http://fossforce.com/2011/09/can-pengui ... -the-prom/

Some interesting excerpts:

“In other words, making Linux boot loaders work with secure boot would require breaking their licensing requirements, and arguably the spirit of Free Open Source Software as well.”

This becomes even more interesting due to the fact that soon Linux will be taking care of it’s own booting. What kind of workaround will Mr. Torvalds find for this that doesn’t evoke the ire of RMS? The good news is that LILO, that old workhorse of a bootloader from old, has been back in development for about a year now. As it’s licensed under the BSD, it can implement secure boot.

LILO. Now that would be a kicker wouldn't it. An "it is as it was" moment for Linux.

[rijnsma]

I never have tried Lilo on this multiboot Linux-system.
Is it workable? And how?

[fletcher]

This looks to me like another way for MS to actually own a computer that someone has purchased. It is taking freedom away from end users, and actually taking the rights to their own machine. This is something I am trying (mostly failing) to teach people in my community. It is one of the reasons I advocate GNU/Linux.

I do not run any MS software or products on my machine. But my mom just got a new computer for her office, and she needs Windows to run programs for her work. So she is now on Windows 7, after being satisfied and comfortable with XP for years. I convinced her to upgrade because support for XP is not going to be around much longer. Bought the computer from a local shop who did the build themselves, so it does not have the strange partitions that some Windows 7 machines have been given. But it still takes away from her freedom to do what she wants with the machine she paid for.

I think that there should be a focus on letting people, meaning general users, know that if stuff like this UEFI is on their machines, then they do not really own the machine. When you own something, you can do with it what you want. MS wants to take that away from computer users and buyers. If more people could understand this, which seems simple to me but I have been using GNU/Linux for several years now, I think that it would help create a larger backlash against anti-competitive practices.

Then again, maybe not. So many computer users so not really know very much, if anything, about the workings of their computers. If it works and does what they need, they do not care about anything else. So many end users do not even know that there is an option for a better, more secure, and (in my opinion) much easier to use and control OS out there. That is the main problem that I face in trying to start a business based around GNU/Linux and FOSS.

[xenopeek]

Good points fletcher, though this move is nothing new. For example, Apple already controls both hardware and software, and fiercely defend against anybody using the software without their hardware. Smartphones do the same. Microsoft is just trying to get into the same corner of the market.

I'd wish people wanted to hear about their freedoms being oppressed by this, and how it decelerates innovation (blocking competitors of your market makes you a monopolist, so no need to innovate anymore--like with Microsoft Internet Explorer before Firefox came along). But they really don't. I'm not saying I've given up (hope), but just looking at the outcome of any political elections confirms that people are stupid and don't care about the future beyond tomorrow...

[humptydumpty]

It would appear form what has been written in the Internet, that Intel is climbing into bed with Microsoft, or at the very least, helping Microsoft in its aspirations to conquer the PC market and kill off the "free world"! I have been unable to ascertain whether or not, a PC owner will be able to remove Windoze 8 and override the UEFI in favour of a less restrictive BIOS. Also, what will happen when a user wishes to boot into Linux from a live disk or USB device? Frankly, UEFI seems to have a distinctly "fishy smell" about it.

I would also like to know if anyone has any idea as to how UEFI will affect the home builders of PC's.

Could this be a Human Rights issue? Surely, we all have the right to use whatever operating system we chose to use on our own PC's! Human Rights legislation seems to be used for virtually everything these days - and my PC's all have mice, but I only have one cat (living here legally!!!).

Humpers.

[rijnsma]

It is like with a lot of things these days: when it is fully and simply switchable there's not much to worry about.
MS says it will... I hope so.. or life is definitly getting less easy for all Linux-users.
I hate especially this thread of M$.

Linux-packers don't communicatie much about this until now. They never communicate much.
So the Linux-user stays in the dark.
Ext3, ext4, Grub1/Grub2, Tk, Qt, Unity, Gnome3, Secure Boot etc. All moves very very fast. Too fast.

And what now? We wait. And see.

[Osd1000]

I'm going to keep windows 7 until they decide to remove safe boot when windows 9 gets released

[rijnsma]

I'm going to keep windows 7 until they decide to remove safe boot when windows 9 gets released

There is a possibillity to vote against 'the kick-out Linux-policy' (which is not yet certain of course):
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot/

Please sign it.

[rijnsma]

and now call me paranoiac, but i believe this viewtopic.php?f=61&t=81315 is related with this topic (i hope i'm wrong)

I wonder if MS are responsible for that virus???

Yes.

[xenopeek]

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has launched a campaign against Windows 8 and UEFI secure booting. Stand up for your freedom to install free software!

Read the truth behind so-called "Secure Boot" and please voice your support and sign the statement.

[rijnsma]

You understand what is at stake.
Maybe it's not só extremely dangerous, but the potential of calamity is there.

[xenopeek]

You understand what is at stake.
Maybe it's not só extremely dangerous, but the potential of calamity is there.

Whoops, I missed you had already shared the link

[rijnsma]

That link can't be shown enough.

http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot/
Everybody sign please!


[By the way, not every Windows-user will be happy with that Metro-touch-screen-interface for toddlers.
But perhaps they will get accustomed, which maybe is a property of Windows-users?!?

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/ ... dows_Users
http://www.mywindowsclub.com/resources/ ... ws-OS.aspx
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/ ... dows_Users
http://www.ctonetworks.com/cto-blog/win ... 7-machine/

Linux tries also doing things like that. (Unity, Gnome3) But those are less big steps.
In the meantime I use Mint Xfce here. It is right, like is Lxde. ]

[AlbertP]

FSF is experiencing technical problems. Too much people signing the campaign?

[rijnsma]

Yes. Or no MS-certificate. ..... Has it started already?? I can't believe it.

[AlbertP]

My computer does not have a Windows 8 logo. The motherboard is, however, Windows XP certified.

[rijnsma]

Then the problems are on the site. That's fine. A lot of signing.

Again:
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot/
Go all sign it!

[AlbertP]

Signed.

(The link to sign was under the technical problems messsage... I missed it)

[Dry Lips]

This thread deserves to be bumped now and then!

Signed!