PLEASE READ: Secure Boot Petition

This post has 7 Replies | 5 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 5,054
Points 60,735
Joined: May 2008
Location: U.S.
Moderator
3vi1 Posted: Fri, Dec 2 2011 9:46 AM

The Free Software Foundation has a very good write-up of something Microsoft's trying to slip in under the radar as part of the Windows 8 requirements:

http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot

This basically means that to get the "Windows 8 Compatible" sticker, manufacturers have to implement Secure (i.e. restricted) Boot.  The problem is, it may be implemented in a way that you can't turn off - making your new hardware "Windows Only".

Now, most people probably say "Who cares? I run Windows anyway".  But, a lot of people here are more technical and know that this would not only kill their ability to use not only Linux, BSD, etc... but also to use recovery disks/usb-keys/liveCDs etc. based on those operating systems.

Also, I'm sure everyone here knows that this technology will do practically nothing of benefit as most viruses/trojans nowadays use hooks *inside* of Windows instead of loading at boot.  The only thing this technology really does is potentially stop a new company from coming along and giving Microsoft competition (and we've seen the stagnation that occurs in Microsoft products when there's no competition (IE4... IE5...).

Microsoft-bashing aside, if you would consider signing the petition (below), so that we can ensure *we* have control of our machines and not just the manufacturer and Microsoft, I'd greatly appreciate it.  You may appreciate it too one day when you want to re-purpose that old Windows machine to run MythTV or something else to extend its life.

http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement

Thanks!

What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

++++++++++++[>++++>+++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]>+++.>++++++++++.-------------.+++.>---.>--.

Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,865
Points 29,645
Joined: Mar 2011
Location: United States, Connecticut

Signed and delivered :)

Windows only hardware = fail and would be cause another huge anti-trust suit.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 8,771
Points 105,115
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
MembershipAdministrator
Moderator
realneil replied on Fri, Dec 2 2011 10:47 AM

No Problem,... I'm off to go sign it right now.

For a company that had their ass handed to them on a platter for anti competitive practices in the past, they haven't learned much.

I imagine that they're trying to justify this by waxing poetic about system security benefits?

It's lucky for many of us that Win-8 isn't really necessary considering how well Win-7 works. (for my gaming)

Dogs are great judges of character, and if your dog doesn't like somebody being around, you shouldn't trust them.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,385
Points 31,075
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: Crystal Lake,IL
rrplay replied on Fri, Dec 2 2011 10:57 AM

Done and Done immediately 3vi1 !!

  we had some stories and articles previously in here about the future of the so so called MS  Win 8 secure boot some key signing etc

surely hope that others will get involved that they are concerned about the freedom to have a choice as to what system they want to run at boot time on hardware they purchased or they simply may not have one.

So thanks for posting this 3vi1 YesI...have always felt very strongly about being able to choose which ever flavour of a desktop, OpenSource systems, kernels &  apps to config & run on hardware that's either purchased or won.

"Don't Panic ! 'cause HH got's your back!"

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 3,236
Points 37,910
Joined: Mar 2010
AKwyn replied on Fri, Dec 2 2011 11:49 AM

I'm with you on this one.

Signed!

 

"The future starts with you; now start posting more!"

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 5,054
Points 60,735
Joined: May 2008
Location: U.S.
Moderator
3vi1 replied on Fri, Dec 2 2011 9:14 PM

Thanks guys!  As usual, you all rock.

What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

++++++++++++[>++++>+++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]>+++.>++++++++++.-------------.+++.>---.>--.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 5,054
Points 60,735
Joined: May 2008
Location: U.S.
Moderator
3vi1 replied on Sat, Jan 14 2012 9:42 AM

Looks like Microsoft's trying to slip one over on us:  After the discussion died down they released their Windows 8 certification terms.  It specifically states, for ARM based devices, that users should *not* be allowed to disable "secure boot".

Can I get another round of anti-trust proceedings up in this $%#@^?

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/01/microsoft-to-prevent-linux-booting-on-arm-hardware/

What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

++++++++++++[>++++>+++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]>+++.>++++++++++.-------------.+++.>---.>--.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,385
Points 31,075
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: Crystal Lake,IL
rrplay replied on Sat, Jan 14 2012 11:19 AM

thanks for the updated info  3vi1  and no doubt MS is blatantly practicing anti-trust measures and paving the way to slip one by ::   to not have any of that exclusive restrictions place on product  specs in the future would be rather deceptive ..

"It will be interesting to see what impact the suggestion has on this issue, and with over 16,000 people having signed the Free Software Foundation’s statement on “Secure Boot” the chances of this issue meekly subsiding are small. "

no surprise from MS and likely to be business as usual & the brainwashing continues


"Don't Panic ! 'cause HH got's your back!"

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (8 items) | RSS