Microsoft Reportedly Requires "Signature PCs" To Be Locked To Only Running Windows

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Microsoft Reportedly Requires "Signature PCs" To Be Locked To Only Running Windows

Lately I've heard a few reports of some newer PCs being less than friendly with Linux, namely a number of Lenovo devices who have issues with installing Linux. Based upon new information that's come to light from a Phoronix reader, it appears that PCs receiving Microsoft's "Signature Edition" tag are being locked-out from running non-Windows platforms...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Microsoft-Signature-PC-No-Linux

[grigi]

Ugh, didn't we see the writing on the wall when "secure boot" was being pushed?
Funny how everything with the words "secure" or "trust" is neither secure nor trustworthy?

[bvbfan]

When M$ dies, many programmers will end-up jobless, but it will be huge step for IT industries, less shitty technologies.

[stiiixy]

When M$ dies, many programmers will end-up jobless, but it will be huge step for IT industries, less shitty technologies.

Only the shit ones, and the unmotivated ones. The rest will have the smarts to be picked up elsewheres or start their own business.

[PyroDevil]

Funny how everything with the words "secure" or "trust" is neither secure nor trustworthy?

I think you just killed a few androids with this statement.

[PhilPotter]

I am certainly not Microsoft's biggest fan, but if they are able to say "Linux doesn't see the hardware" then they at least got a kernel booting on it - ergo, secure boot cannot be preventing it from loading. This sounds like something else than a hardware lock to me.

[johnc]

Buy a Chromebook and install Ubuntu.

I see so many people out there grabbing their ankles when it comes to Microsoft -- especially tech enthusiasts. They've been given every opportunity to get off the turd juice, but no... they just have to keep on drinking. They even had a chance to get on board Linux when their most favorite excuse -- "muh games!" -- had an opportunity to get big. But nope. They deserve to get what's coming to them.

[bitman]

Ugh, didn't we see the writing on the wall when "secure boot" was being pushed?
Funny how everything with the words "secure" or "trust" is neither secure nor trustworthy?

No, because this is not locked down through secure boot. As long as there are knobs to disable signature enforcement and roll out our own keys secure boot is a good thing.

[mlau]

I am certainly not Microsoft's biggest fan, but if they are able to say "Linux doesn't see the hardware" then they at least got a kernel booting on it - ergo, secure boot cannot be preventing it from loading. This sounds like something else than a hardware lock to me.

The issue is with Linux (and the vanilla Win10 Installer as well) being unable to see the SSD. The BIOS purposefully sets the storage controller into RAID mode, disables the option to change it (i.e. write-protects the UEFI variable that lets you change this) so that you need a custom driver, instead of the standard AHCI one.

[pipe13]

And according to this Lenovo representative, an unadvertised requirement is that it be locked to running Windows 10.

Well... I not a lawyer and all that. But Microsoft might want to rethink (at least) the "unadvertised" part. IIRC they've been down the anti-trust rabbit hole sometime before, and counting on Mr. Trump to go their bail this time is possibly a wee bit premature.