If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
No announcement yet.
Windows8 "Secure Boot" UEFI 2.3.1 ban Linux and all other Opensource-OS:
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 :
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.
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.
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.
I don't think this is settled yet. The Sixth and Federal Circuits essentially ruled that the scope of Section 1201 is limited to enforcing copyright, but the Ninth Circuit ruled instead that Section 1201 creates an entirely new right distinct from copyright. We can't know for sure until the law is amended or the issue goes to the Supreme Court.
I don't really see enabling this as a realistic possibility in a real implementation. Microsoft has enough problems with anti-trust as it is and they don't have much of a problem with people installing alternate bootloaders or OSes -- it doesn't threaten their business interests at all at this stage, but another multi-billion dollar fine would.
I believe this is more a threat to consumer products - especially for Apple users (since Apple tend to lock down things where they can).
In the server and workstation market linux/bsd/*nix support is often a requirement for paying customers and I bet no vendor wants to upset those