Microsoft tries to block Linux off Windows 8 PCs

[Ted]

i didn't realize that UEFI would mean that vendors would have to have 
signatures.
Well seems to me if linux distro signatures can't be introduced to allow 
linux to dual boot,
the HW manufactures would essentially be closing the HW off to only new 
windows,
which is highly illegal, so why would MS do something like that?
There isn't even your standard very corrupt (corporate) court in US that 
would allow it.
It would be like saying you buy a ford, they only allow Goodyear tires 
on it,
yet other tires are all proven acceptable.
I would think the only way this is going to fly is if the HW vendors 
also , through what ever process,
allow linux, sun, ESX, etc, to run via some security signing.
Even if US courts allowed it , MS would be finished in Europe, 0 new 
sales, doesn't sound like a good idea to me (for MS).

-tl


On 09/21/2011 06:00 PM, Colin McGregor wrote:
> The central point in all of this is that ANY OS that is not properly
> signed in Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) will not be
> allowed to boot. In other words, NO Linux will run (unless the
> hardware vendor has included a signature for YOUR Linux distro.),
> ditto old versions of Microsoft Windows, ditto other free OSs such as
> FreeBSD. The reason the hardware vendors would add UEFI is because
> they will not be able to use the Windows 8 logo without UEFI. Bottom
> line, this is Microsoft under the cover of "security" attacking Linux,
> other free OSs and old versions of Windows.
>
> Colin
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Ted<ted.leslie-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>  wrote:
>> Not sure i understand it.
>> I can see a company not wanting a rootkit and essentially allowing for a
>> insecure boot and  other issues,
>> I mean  a linux distro could demand this (for valid security reasons) and
>> lock out dual boot to windows?
>> But, is it not the case that this signing issue would not have any effect on
>> dual boot from separate drives?
>> I know at times i have had dual boot be drive based and flipped in bios.
>> I guess however this would be deemed a hassle to some? Given boot priority
>> however, if you
>> had drive drawers or power switch on drives, you could just dual boot by
>> powering off the windows drive (or pop it, or bios change priority),
>> and then it goes into linux?
>> So seems to me its hardly a "block", if that was even attempt by MS, but
>> rather maybe a slight annoyance at best?
>>
>> -tl
>>
>> On 09/21/2011 05:28 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 05:18:46PM -0400, Thomas Milne wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/microsoft-tries-to-block-linux-off-windows-8-pcs/9572?tag=mantle_skin%3Bcontent
>>> Of course we don't know that yet.  So far it is just speculation.
>>>
>>> I do imagine some companies would love a method to prevent their machines
>>> from having rootkits installed (at least by currently known methods).
>>>
>>> Of course given existing windows versions aren't signed, any machine
>>> that requires this to work, won't work with existing windows versions,
>>> so the changes of that happening seems pretty slim.
>>>
>> --
>> The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
>> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
>> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists
>>
> --
> The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists