←back to thread

253 points pabs3 | 8 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
jmclnx ◴[] No.44615067[source]
And this is why I avoid and will always avoid "Secure Boot". I can see many newer Linux people being locked out starting in Sept.
replies(3): >>44615474 #>>44616122 #>>44617464 #
1. willa_bombadier ◴[] No.44616122[source]
There should be some “Sane Usage” certification that a device doesn’t do secure boot, provides fully open and self-maintainable hardware, is independent of all external entities for ongoing use, provides hardware switches to turn off built-ins like ports, mics, and cameras, for power-savings and security.
replies(2): >>44616412 #>>44616647 #
2. pydry ◴[] No.44616412[source]
"Will this piss off or delight Microsoft?" is probably a thought that goes through the heads of many OEMs when they decide how to design their machines.
replies(1): >>44616593 #
3. msgodel ◴[] No.44616593[source]
Weirdly Microsoft has been one of the companies ensuring Linux remains bootable on PCs.
replies(2): >>44616764 #>>44616860 #
4. bayindirh ◴[] No.44616647[source]
To be able to get Windows licenses and preload Windows on your system, put that little Windows sticker and sell your machine to the masses, you need a Windows Compatibility certificate, and that certificate needs you to have Secure Boot and enabled by default.
replies(1): >>44616696 #
5. salawat ◴[] No.44616696[source]
Sounds anti-competitive as fuck to me. Maybe we should, I don't know; do something about companies using contractual requirements to lock key industrial into one way of doing things in order to shut down such efforts?
replies(1): >>44617086 #
6. bayindirh ◴[] No.44616764{3}[source]
Bill Gates famously asked: "Can we create a standard or expand something like ACPI, so Linux becomes unbootable on PCs?"

So, believing this is very, very hard.

7. pydry ◴[] No.44616860{3}[source]
Microsoft has been trying to tread a fine line between exerting subtle pressure on OEMs to make Linux annoying to boot so it doesnt become more popular and not violating the terms of its antitrust agreement.
8. edoceo ◴[] No.44617086{3}[source]
What is the something we can do?