Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position • Hacker News Board

Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position

#41

Post by cooldeal » Thu, Feb 28, 2013, 3:06 PM UTC

speeder wrote: post #7

I always thought that the secure boot is a very, very, very bad idea. In fact the whole UEFI in general I think it is a clusterfuck of mishmashed random ideas, some good, many bad. What I intend to do personally, is attempt to don't use secure boot. And this all might explain the e-mail I got from Lenovo 10 minutes ago... I asked them for a non-Windows machine. They replied saying that they from now on only manufactu…

>In fact the whole UEFI in general I think it is a clusterfuck of mishmashed random ideas, some good, many bad.

Care to explain why or how, instead of just throwing a general statement around?

Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position

#42

Post by Nux » Thu, Feb 28, 2013, 3:08 PM UTC

mimiflynn wrote: post #29

rplnt wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly is illegal? Selling a machine with OS or not selling it without one? And as for the "this explains then why ThinkPads must come with Windows" - no. It doesn't explain it. Secure boot has to be present on Windows certified machine, not the other way around. Lenovo can sell whatever they want (but apparently it's beneficial for them economically to only sell Windows machines). Also, certified machine has t…

I think the issue is: to buy a Lenovo machine is to buy Windows. There is no other option but to have to pay for Windows with your machine. One can't just buy a laptop with nothing on it. This can be seen as unfair to the customer in many countries and therefore, illegal.

Don't buy Lenovo, then. Places like e.g. http://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/laptop-computers/ sell custom laptops without the Windows tax.

Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position

#43

Post by RexRollman » Thu, Feb 28, 2013, 3:08 PM UTC

cooldeal wrote: post #41

speeder wrote: post #7

I always thought that the secure boot is a very, very, very bad idea. In fact the whole UEFI in general I think it is a clusterfuck of mishmashed random ideas, some good, many bad. What I intend to do personally, is attempt to don't use secure boot. And this all might explain the e-mail I got from Lenovo 10 minutes ago... I asked them for a non-Windows machine. They replied saying that they from now on only manufactu…

>In fact the whole UEFI in general I think it is a clusterfuck of mishmashed random ideas, some good, many bad. Care to explain why or how, instead of just throwing a general statement around?

Because UEFI is overly complicated and more akin to a mini-OS. All most people really want is for the firmware to set up the hardware and then hand over to the bootloader.

Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position

#44

Post by cooldeal » Thu, Feb 28, 2013, 3:08 PM UTC

Linus posted a NSFW rant about it a few days ago. The story mysteriously went off the HN front page and subsequent submissions of the story went [dead].

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5279531

Rankings graph showing a deep dive.

http://hnrankings.info/5279531/

Part of Linus' email:

>Guys, this is not a dick-sucking contest. If you want to parse PE binaries, go right ahead.

>If Red Hat wants to deep-throat Microsoft, that's your issue. That has nothing what-so-ever to do with the kernel I maintain. It's trivial for you guys to have a signing machine that parses the PE binary, verifies the signatures, and signs the resulting keys with your own key. You already wrote the code, for chissake, it's in that f*cking pull request.

Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position

#45

Post by josefresco » Thu, Feb 28, 2013, 3:15 PM UTC

speeder wrote: post #7

I always thought that the secure boot is a very, very, very bad idea. In fact the whole UEFI in general I think it is a clusterfuck of mishmashed random ideas, some good, many bad. What I intend to do personally, is attempt to don't use secure boot. And this all might explain the e-mail I got from Lenovo 10 minutes ago... I asked them for a non-Windows machine. They replied saying that they from now on only manufactu…

"I hope a rain of lawsuits make this shit stop."

Is that really the appropriate response to a company that basically made a choice to not offer the type of product you are seeking? Buy what you want from someone else ... problem solved. When you can't buy from someone else...then there's a problem.

Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position

#46

Post by recoiledsnake » Thu, Feb 28, 2013, 3:21 PM UTC

RexRollman wrote: post #43

cooldeal wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In fact the whole UEFI in general I think it is a clusterfuck of mishmashed random ideas, some good, many bad. Care to explain why or how, instead of just throwing a general statement around?

Because UEFI is overly complicated and more akin to a mini-OS. All most people really want is for the firmware to set up the hardware and then hand over to the bootloader.

Isn't that what is already does? In fact it is so fast handing control to the OS that in Windows 8 Microsoft had to add an option to restart into UEFI settings mode. Which features are unneeded in your opinion?

Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position

#47

Post by recoiledsnake » Thu, Feb 28, 2013, 3:23 PM UTC

speeder wrote: post #7

I always thought that the secure boot is a very, very, very bad idea. In fact the whole UEFI in general I think it is a clusterfuck of mishmashed random ideas, some good, many bad. What I intend to do personally, is attempt to don't use secure boot. And this all might explain the e-mail I got from Lenovo 10 minutes ago... I asked them for a non-Windows machine. They replied saying that they from now on only manufactu…

In Brazil or anywhere, can you buy a car with the default sound system ripped out and get a refund for it? What about without the default tires, seats or even the engine?

Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position

#48

Post by cooldeal » Thu, Feb 28, 2013, 3:29 PM UTC

krenel wrote: post #24

TheAnimus wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just bought a UEFI laptop in Vietnam that was Lenovo brand, it came unlicensed with windows, but fully supports secure boot in to it. Are you sure this isn't just a regional sales thing, not selling a Windows Free version in that teritory?

As rplnt as said: > but apparently it's beneficial for them economically to only sell Windows machines Maybe in Vietnam it happens just the opposite. It's easy to sell a computer _without_ Windows that with it. I don't get why the companies cannot sell "empty" laptops without OS installed, thought.

>Maybe in Vietnam it happens just the opposite. It's easy to sell a computer _without_ Windows that with it

That is because most of the PCs end up being installed with pirated Windows by the local tech guru.

Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position

#49

Post by _ea1k » Thu, Feb 28, 2013, 3:29 PM UTC

recoiledsnake wrote: post #47

speeder wrote: post #7

I always thought that the secure boot is a very, very, very bad idea. In fact the whole UEFI in general I think it is a clusterfuck of mishmashed random ideas, some good, many bad. What I intend to do personally, is attempt to don't use secure boot. And this all might explain the e-mail I got from Lenovo 10 minutes ago... I asked them for a non-Windows machine. They replied saying that they from now on only manufactu…

In Brazil or anywhere, can you buy a car with the default sound system ripped out and get a refund for it? What about without the default tires, seats or even the engine?

The default tires and default sound system have residual value when ripped out. I am sure that the dealer would be happy to give you some fraction of their worth and then provide you the car without them. Or you could sell them yourself.

Windows, OTOH, is something that you pay for, but generally comes in an OEM license. This license is non-transferable in most cases.

Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position

#50

Post by speeder » Thu, Feb 28, 2013, 3:30 PM UTC

recoiledsnake wrote: post #47

speeder wrote: post #7

I always thought that the secure boot is a very, very, very bad idea. In fact the whole UEFI in general I think it is a clusterfuck of mishmashed random ideas, some good, many bad. What I intend to do personally, is attempt to don't use secure boot. And this all might explain the e-mail I got from Lenovo 10 minutes ago... I asked them for a non-Windows machine. They replied saying that they from now on only manufactu…

In Brazil or anywhere, can you buy a car with the default sound system ripped out and get a refund for it? What about without the default tires, seats or even the engine?

Actually, yes.

You can ask here for cars without sound system, air conditioner, airbag, electric windows....

Never saw a lawsuit on that though, maybe because I never saw a manufacturer be stubborn regarding that.