Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42

Thread: Windows8 "Secure Boot" UEFI 2.3.1 ban Linux and all other Opensource-OS:

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default Windows8 "Secure Boot" UEFI 2.3.1 ban Linux and all other Opensource-OS:

    http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldu...1-1334957.html

    "Aus der Linux-Community wurde schon angemerkt, dass es für freie Betriebssysteme schwierig sein könnte, signierte Bootloader zu erzeugen."

    quick translate: "linux experts in the community point out that no one will get an key to signing a free boot loader for this system"

    HELL Microsoft is truely the most evil anti FREE and Anti Open company..

    Right in this moment i wish all microsoft employees and company owner would die a painful death.

    damn.. i hate this company.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    849

    Default

    I think the translation is bad. You translate "könnte"→"will" which makes the entire thing sound drastically worse.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Dominican Republic
    Posts
    46

    Default

    at the bottom of that article there's a link to the english version, here it is: http://www.h-online.com/security/new...1-1335246.html in case anyone misses it.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Well... I don´t see any change in their attitude.
    Who the hell needs windows anyway?
    I love them more and more with each version, with each step. Each their step is proof what pieces of *cake* they are.
    Last edited by crazycheese; 09-02-2011 at 01:53 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,544

    Default

    I don't think this is a concern about Windows, but rather about hardware vendors shipping with secure boot enabled and no way to disable it, so that *only* a digitally signed bootloader (eg the one in the pre-installed OS) could be loaded and run. The h-online article contains a link to an lwn article with more info :

    http://lwn.net/Articles/447381/

    Don't think anyone is suggesting that this *will* happen, only that it *could* happen.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    http://lwn.net/Articles/447381/
    Don't think anyone is suggesting that this *will* happen, only that it *could* happen.
    even if it *could* happen its the worst story ever!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    I don't think this is a concern about Windows, but rather about hardware vendors shipping with secure boot enabled and no way to disable it, so that *only* a digitally signed bootloader (eg the one in the pre-installed OS) could be loaded and run.
    Why would I want to buy a motherboard that can only run Windows?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chithanh View Post
    I think the translation is bad. You translate "könnte"→"will" which makes the entire thing sound drastically worse.
    LOL why should i translate a written text in an Microsoft tropic NOT WORSE?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    LOL why should i translate a written text in an Microsoft tropic NOT WORSE?
    Ehh? What does your sentence even mean?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    I don't think this is a concern about Windows, but rather about hardware vendors shipping with secure boot enabled and no way to disable it, so that *only* a digitally signed bootloader (eg the one in the pre-installed OS) could be loaded and run. The h-online article contains a link to an lwn article with more info :

    http://lwn.net/Articles/447381/

    Don't think anyone is suggesting that this *will* happen, only that it *could* happen.
    I actually Tend to lean more on the *will* happen scenario. Most Users of computers do not even know what a boot loader is, much less what the difference between Mac, linux and windows. That said, the End user will just expect the computer to work, and by the same token not even think twice about blaming the OS as a whole for things not working out of the box.

    Anyways, I believe that a high chance of an Antitrust lawsuit happening should a vendor choose to go the route of only allowing the pre-installed os to install. Of course, this is because the preinstalled OS of most vendors is windows.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alejandro Nova View Post
    News: hackers crack Linux-hostile UEFI firmwares in 3, 2, 1...
    I actually believe this will happen, even in the states. It's actually known that the DMCA is not meant to prevent users from doing things like using Third-party ink cartridges in the printers that the user bought from the store. With that known, the same logic will apply when someone looks at the intentional lockdown of a device to a specific Company's operating system and boot loader.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •