Free Software Foundation Thinks It Can Stop SecureBoot
Phoronix: Free Software Foundation Thinks It Can Stop SecureBoot
The Free Software Foundation is now soliciting donations and signatures for a pledge in hopes that it can stop UEFI SecureBoot and other "restricted boot" systems from becoming too common...
Has the FSF just emerged after living in a cave for a while? Where was this idea a couple of years ago when it could've had more impact?
Why is there so much effort is trying to retain dual boot?
Simple set it that when Linux installs it kills Microsoft protected partitions.
I just bought a brand new Windows 8 Dell laptop that has this SecureBoot.
Booting Linux was as easy as going into the BIOS and selecting "LEGACY" instead of "UEFI". Problem solved.
I was positive SecureBoot would only be a problem for ARM devices where it isn't a requirement to provide an option to disable SecureBoot. If ARM wants to be stupid, let them be stupid. I don't think it's the FSF's job to try and save a stupid company like ARM that is trying to force everybody to use SecureBoot. I mean, sure, I'll sign the little petition that says I'm not going to buy hardware that doesn't let me disable SecureBoot.. But I won't sign a petition that says I won't buy any hardware that has an optional secureboot feature, that's just silly.
And you can still boot windows too ?
Originally Posted by Sidicas
Of course you can. SecureBoot isn't a requirement to boot Windows, it just prevents unsigned code from running at boot.
Originally Posted by Gps4l
Well it is not actually that much ARM, Acron RISC machines is just delivering the virtual design for CPUs. They do not actually make hardware. They leave it to the various chipmakers and it's probably also up to them or, better up to the "BIOS"/UEFI writers to implement sh!t. The problem is that a lot of devices use ARM tech, especially small mobile things like (smart)phones, tablets and small netbooks. And if they have "hardwired" non-optional secure boot that IS an issue.
Either way I do not want or need secure boot on any platform. It sucks. It's TCPA/TPM name it as you want and thus it is utter crap and always endangering customer's rights and freedom. It does NOT give the user any security enhancement. It is just an instrument to control the user.
Maybe I sound like rms now but that is fine cause in that matter he's usually just right.
Has anyone thought of creating an Avaaz petition? Thus it would be possible to obtain more signatures from more people...
One GOOD story and we all should be happy?
Come one. There are dozens of OEMs who do not care about any other OS than Win. They can skimp on BIOS development by just making Win run on it.
BUT its more about MS twist of SB. Which FORBID options such as meantioned "LEGACY" mode. At release time or as future updates. NO OPTION TO TURN OFF SB (which by itself is make such implementation INCOMPATIBLE with UEFI).
Personally I do not care if I can disable it by hw switch (like in chromebooks) or by sw switch, but inability to install any software I want to on hardware I OWN, because manufacturer FORBIDS ME?
And as usual there are voices that consumer rights be damned, companies have right to do anything and they are happy with it......
Tags for this Thread