Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42

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

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    thats not the point the point is they just buy it and blame linux not to run on there hardware.
    Exactly.

    (stupid 10 character limit)

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    Exactly.

    (stupid 10 character limit)
    thats very sad :-(

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut,USA
    Posts
    974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    thats not the point the point is they just buy it and blame linux not to run on there hardware.
    Precisely, and one reason to avoid such boards if they ever hit the market. Bet some indie board makers will avoid those chipsets like the plague

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Santiago, Chile
    Posts
    258

    Default

    News: hackers crack Linux-hostile UEFI firmwares in 3, 2, 1...

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut,USA
    Posts
    974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alejandro Nova View Post
    News: hackers crack Linux-hostile UEFI firmwares in 3, 2, 1...
    I am sure that's being worked on...only a matter of time

  6. #16
    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.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    187

    Default

    Is their any way of me adapt this tech so should I ever take leave of my senses I would be unable to contaminate my system with windows?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dandel View Post
    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.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    20

    Default

    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 don't see it being enabled.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1

    Default

    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

Posting Permissions

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