Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu's Plans To Implement UEFI SecureBoot: No GRUB2

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #51
    Well does your board support efi? When your system is booted via efi then

    efibootmgr

    will not show any error.

    Comment


    • #52
      I fear I didn't make my present situation clear ;

      Originally posted by Kano View Post
      Well does your board support efi? When your system is booted via efi then

      efibootmgr

      will not show any error.
      my mainboard is a GA-990FXA-UD3 and thus supports BIOS rather than UEFI. I was rather hoping to get an answer for future reference ; i e, for my next build....

      Henri

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by werfu View Post
        I dont get why this Secured Boot and requiring Microsoft key doesn't bring an Anti-trust suit againt MS. I mean, they're basically locking out people from using other OS unless these OS have paid MS for the signing. That's a hell of case!
        Actually, no - Microsoft aren't doing anything of the sort. All they've done is require vendors to ship Microsoft's own key - they're in no way preventing (or even pressuring) those vendors to not supply other keys as well. The "pay MS" part comes from the fact that since companies like Canonical or Redhat don't have enough influence with vendors to get their own key shipped, Microsoft will provide a signing service that allows those companies to take advantage of Microsoft's ubiquitous key.

        It's quite neatly done, actually. Microsoft haven't done anything remotely illegal, nor abused their market position in such a way that anti-trust laws would come into play - indeed, they're going out of their way to help their small competitors. And yet despite that, they've obtained considerable advantage out of it. Say what you want about them, but this is very well thought out.
        Last edited by Delgarde; 24 June 2012, 07:48 PM.

        Comment


        • #54
          @mhenriday

          your board should support uefi, a bit uncommonly implemented as bios addon however not the other way around. you need to use a distro with uefi support however, just dd a kanotix iso onto an usb key and try (hybrid mbr+uefi mode).

          Comment


          • #55
            Sure

            Originally posted by aliasbody View Post
            The real problem is there, the manufacturer do whatever he wants. You want an example ? I bought an Asus 1215N with Optimus, and in the first 14 days acording to my country's legislation, if I have a real good reason (i've juste resumed this part), I can send back what i bought and have a new one or just a refund.

            The problem is that when I've tried to get a new one, the reason I told them was that I was using Linux and Optimus isn't compactible, so they contact Asus and the answers was a simple and pure now because the material was only made for Windows.

            The UEFI thing will be the same, they will request a signed OS with signed Kernel etc... and if you don't have that they will just refuse you the refund because (as they say) your are using a non autorized system on the machine.

            This is why I have the all UEFI thing, and this is the principal reason I don't want to buy a Macbook anymore and I have fear on buying future laptops.
            It might be that one won't be able to buy 'stock' laptops any more. Just look for a manufacturer who lets you decide what you get? For my last notebook I searched 'hard' on the internet rather than going to a supermarket. They are certainly out there and let you customize your hardware and choose your OS or no OS at all.
            nVidia support, it is always better to check beforehand if it works or if they support Linux.

            For the experience with Asus, did it come with a preinstalled Windows? If not, I would want my money back...

            Comment


            • #56
              And you really have read that on x86 you just can switch of secure boot? That's part of the specification...

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by Kano View Post
                And you really have read that on x86 you just can switch of secure boot? That's part of the specification...
                I don't think that it is part of the UEFI Secure Boot specification to have a option to disable it.

                It is a requirement of the Microsoft Windows 8 Logo Certification that a x86 computer must be able to disable Secure Boot.
                Interesting enough, it is not a requirement for the Ubuntu certification to have a disable Secure Boot switch.

                Comment


                • #58
                  Well do you want to buy an ubuntu only pc I would never do so. Btw. you could prepare your own boot media just with the signed u bootloaders if it does not matter if the kernel bootet later is signed or not. You gain absolutely nothing.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    "Booting our CDs will rely on a loader image signed by Microsoft's WinQual key, for much the same reasons as Fedora: it's a key that, realistically, more or less every off-the-shelf system is going to have,"


                    They are declaring themself as "off-the-shelf system".

                    This means they are not going for 1st class, but crap class.

                    With such attitude, Canonical is on sure way to hell!

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
                      Actually, no - Microsoft aren't doing anything of the sort. All they've done is require vendors to ship Microsoft's own key - they're in no way preventing (or even pressuring) those vendors to not supply other keys as well. The "pay MS" part comes from the fact that since companies like Canonical or Redhat don't have enough influence with vendors to get their own key shipped, Microsoft will provide a signing service that allows those companies to take advantage of Microsoft's ubiquitous key.

                      It's quite neatly done, actually. Microsoft haven't done anything remotely illegal, nor abused their market position in such a way that anti-trust laws would come into play - indeed, they're going out of their way to help their small competitors. And yet despite that, they've obtained considerable advantage out of it. Say what you want about them, but this is very well thought out.
                      Definition of monopoly:

                      A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity (this contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly which consists of a few entities dominating an industry).
                      ...
                      The verb "monopolize" refers to the process by which a company gains the ability to raise prices or exclude competitors. In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power, to charge high prices.[3] Although monopolies may be big businesses, size is not a characteristic of a monopoly. A small business may still have the power to raise prices in a small industry (or market).[4]
                      Microsoft being the only valid key signer perfectly FITS the definition of monopoly.

                      So, instead RH, SUSE and Canonical getting together and SUING microsoft, they decide to swallow the crap that is thrown onto them???!

                      WTF!!!



                      How it should have been done:

                      Independent entry, that is signing for free, provided the payload passes its review. The costs for review should NOT be extraordinary, especially when the code is open-source.
                      That would solve EVERYTHING.
                      Last edited by crazycheese; 25 June 2012, 06:15 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X