Microsoft tries to block Linux off Windows 8 PCs

[Ted]

couldn't the ma and pop linux distro just run on a booted RH, SUSE, UBUNTU?
hmmmm de-fracturing linux distros and standardizing on a few hmmmm, me like!
20,000 disros, i have always seen as excessive, just keep to 20-40 
(everone join forces) :)
Would the signing mean you couldn't mod  the kernel (if redhat, suse, etc).
Hopefully hackers would hack W8 offer as pirate OS, that you launch 
(partially),
then it in turn starts and distro?
Hopefully HW vendors just pass on the whole thing.

-tl

On 09/21/2011 06:36 PM, Colin McGregor wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Ted<ted.leslie-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>  wrote:
>> 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?
> But it isn't Microsoft that is doing this. The keys are in the hands
> of the hardware vendors, so if Vendor X adds support for Ubuntu 11.04
> that would be fine (but Ubuntu 10.10 and 11.10 would not run without
> modifications to the UEFI). Next question being how many hardware
> vendors would add OSs other than the current version of Windows? Maybe
> a few. Okay, next question, of the vendors that do add support for at
> least one free OS, how many would go beyond say Red Hat and Ubuntu?
> For all practical purposes this move will eliminate access to
> inexpensive new PC hardware by most  versions of Linux. The nasty
> point in this being that when hauled into court (as I hope they will
> be), Microsoft will be able to point at the hardware vendors, and say
> "If you want Debian, or Fedora, or ... on your computer talk to the
> hardware vendors". Further, while in court Microsoft will be able to
> spew tankers full of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) about Linux....
>
>> 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).
>
> Sounds to me like evil brilliance if they can pull it off (and we need
> to figure out how to stop them... ).
>
> Colin
>
>> -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

--
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