Linux Foundation Struggles With Microsoft UEFI Signing

[freedam]

personally I see this as nothing to worry about. Considering how poorly Windows 8 is doing and the fact that implementing this UEFI seems to be a pain in the ass for hardware vendors, i don't think this will last. I'm sure most hardware manufacturers will just say "screw it, this isn't worth the effort and customer complaints".

I'm sure that most people who buy a system with Windows 8 on it and intend to replace it with another OS will not be putting linux on it but probably android.

Most people will just use it (even if it is a total mess, i think this too), there is very much to worry about.

[Adarion]

I read
UEFI
"Secure" Boot
Microsoft
Symantec
Silverlight
.net
cabinet file
hurdles with the 7 stage process
in one article and suddenly I feel the urge to KILL people!

So we're waiting for MS to sign our bootloader so maybe we can boot from the next generation of mainboards? lol.

[89c51]

And so it begins... UEFI is unleashed upon the world and the Linux Foundations is having issues with proprietary technologies from Microsoft. The fact the we need a "Microsoft UEFI Signing" process is really sad. One can only guess how much grief this will generate down the road. I'm pessimistic about this one...

Don't bundle UEFI with secure boot like that. They are not the same thing and neither is bad. And while UEFI can be cancerous -depending on the morons that implemented it (read intel)- secure boot implementation that requires something from a "competing company" is equally stupid.

[schmidtbag]

personally I see this as nothing to worry about. Considering how poorly Windows 8 is doing and the fact that implementing this UEFI seems to be a pain in the ass for hardware vendors, i don't think this will last. I'm sure most hardware manufacturers will just say "screw it, this isn't worth the effort and customer complaints".

I'm sure that most people who buy a system with Windows 8 on it and intend to replace it with another OS will not be putting linux on it but probably android.

[GreatEmerald]

Legal action is needed.

This. Requiring Silverlight for the signing process is absolutely unacceptable. They must provide an alternative way of doing it.

[disi]

Cannot be easier:
1. have a MS live account
2. have a tool to handle MS Cabinet files and wrap your bootloader binary int it
3. have a tool to sign MS Cabinet files
4. have a MS OS that can run Silverlight to upload the signed binary

Four steps and four times the work MS in it

[DeiF]

Legal action is needed.

[freedam]

EU really needs to something about this.

Silverlight required for the uploader is just icing on the cake, they just made it to fuck with us.
Microsoft even deprecated Silverlight.

Really fucked up that we need the permission of Microsoft to run our system.

SecureBoot is so flawed in everything from its design to implementation.

I must fully agree with you here, all this is just grotesque, i can't find another word.

[uid313]

EU

EU really needs to something about this.

Silverlight required for the uploader is just icing on the cake, they just made it to fuck with us.
Microsoft even deprecated Silverlight.

Really fucked up that we need the permission of Microsoft to run our system.

SecureBoot is so flawed in everything from its design to implementation.

[dh04000]

Not sure if serious...

I seriously laughed out loud on this part.