Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

mjg59.dreamwidth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 178 posts

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#161

Post by [deleted] »

comex wrote: post #25
npsimons wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with me setting my user-agent to "By allowing me access, you waive all rights and policies regarding my access." and then viewing your website? Hint: it's about as enforceable as a EULA, but just as obnoxious and offensive because it presumes too much and oversteps bounds. Still, in the grand scheme of things, my UA string makes more sense, as putting something online is practically tantamount to putting…

This EULA is unlikely to be unenforceable, as you have the option of returning the product to the manufacturer if you don't want to agree to it.

[deleted]

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#162

Post by gizmo686 »

mjg59 wrote: post #142
gizmo686 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless, it should be possible for the third party loader to claim to be "Windows Boot Manager". I can't imagine that there would be any cryptographic verification that the boot loader is actually "Windows Boot Manager". This is because the crypto logic is essential to check that the binary is signed by a trusted key. This process would happen before the UEFI thinks about entering the boot loader. It would also no…

It's entirely possible to do that, but that's a string that's (often) visible to the user. Now I'd have to remember which "Windows Boot Manager" is Windows and which is Linux.

This is a perfect example of why I don't want UEFI; I spent a long time learning how to do all of this in GRUB, and now they are putting these basic features in the firmware where they belong. Get off my lawn.

Anyway, if this is a problem, you should still be able to use a bootloader to provide the selection menu. I think it should be possible for this bootloader to leverage UEFI to avoid increasing the boot time noticeably. But I do agree that hardcoding names like "Windows Boot Manager" is horrible spec design (and maybe grounds for an anti-trust suit?).

A think I am more open to this type of workaround because I already have set up simmilar systems on my computer. For example, Java does not play nice with window managers that do not re-parent. This caused a problem in Sun's window manager "LG3D", which was non-re-parenting, so they hardcoded a special case for LG3D so things would work. So now, if software asks, I am running LG3D.

You can also look through the Linux kernel device drivers for many special cases.

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#163

Post by tmzt »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #116
qwerta wrote: post #75

There will always be an option to install Linux on x86 somehow. But I found really disturbing growing number of locked ARM systems. Perhaps we could start 'green' campaign; freely installing Linux on such devices expands their moral life-time and causes less emission.

"always". What is this always scenario look like if MS decides to drop the "must allow legacy boot / disabling SB / enrolling key" requirement and only enroll theirs? Not saying that will happen, I honestly don't think Microsoft cares that much (my own opinion, speculation based on Linux's market share despite my own love of it). Just... "always" is a strong word. People used that word when talking about secure bootl…

Theirs may already be the only key used in practice, particularly with Linux companies embracing their signing key.

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#164

Post by astrodust »

znmeb wrote: post #40

What a whiner! Maybe it's different for laptops, but for desktops, you can still go almost anywhere and have a custom-built system made without any Windows install at all! Huge hard drive, flaming fast GPU, RAM up tha wazoo, studio-grade sound card and as many cores as Intel or AMD can cram onto a chip these days. Hell, if you want a Linux laptop, buy a Sputnik from Dell!

What if, in the interests of appeasing Microsoft, only Windows 8 certified Secure Boot motherboards are made by the big manufacturers?

What if the EFI is so locked down, the hardware so Windows-specific, you can't make Linux work on it?

That's the future people are trying to avoid.

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#165

Post by astrodust »

ElliotH wrote: post #94
zimbatm wrote: post #93

Microsoft is doing the same thing as Apple with their iPhone and geeks get upset. Apple is not allowing arbitrary OS to run on their system unless you find an security hole and manage to work around the protection. I don't hear claims that Apple is having an uncompetitive behavior but obviously the difference is that they didn't take that away, iPhones have been locked down from day one. That said, I'm very much in t…

Many of us do dislike that Apple lock their hardware down. So I vote with my wallet and buy less locked down devices. The concern is that it will become increasingly difficult to find a computer that does not include this behaviour.

Apple's notebooks and desktops are the opposite of locked down. You want to install another OS on it? They even provide the Boot Camp tool to make it easy for you.

Want to scrub the system and start from scratch? Use rEFIt (http://refit.sourceforge.net) and replace the loader.

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#166

Post by dlitz »

unhammer wrote: post #68
dlitz wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking of the EULA, couldn't I just lie to my tablet? Assume there's no communication back to Microsoft and no need for a license under copyright law. Couldn't I just click the "I agree" button while not actually accepting the EULA? Surely, the tablet itself can't be a party to a contract, right?

I do this all the time when I'm signing contracts, I just lie to the paper and sign my name even though I don't agree with it. Right.

Well, in this case, the signed paper is never actually delivered to the other party, and the other party has no knowledge that you ever signed it in the first place.

A signed piece of paper is neither necessary nor sufficient to form a contract. It's prima facie evidence that an agreement took place, but that's not the same thing.

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#167

Post by drivebyacct2 »

tmzt wrote: post #163
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"always". What is this always scenario look like if MS decides to drop the "must allow legacy boot / disabling SB / enrolling key" requirement and only enroll theirs? Not saying that will happen, I honestly don't think Microsoft cares that much (my own opinion, speculation based on Linux's market share despite my own love of it). Just... "always" is a strong word. People used that word when talking about secure bootl…

Theirs may already be the only key used in practice, particularly with Linux companies embracing their signing key.

Hm, interesting point. They've effectively made themselves the perfect gate keeper. Even for people like us on HN, I highly highly doubt hardly anyone outside of mjg59 has ever enrolled their own key.

I'm even highly interested in PKI and SecureBoot and have been quelling FUD about it for sometime but if I ever buy a non Pixel/MBA device, I'll leave the MS key in there almost assuredly.

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#168

Post by scholia »

fractallyte wrote: post #159
scholia wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically correct (IBM offered three different operating systems) but it stopped being true a long time ago. PCs are sold as integrated systems, and they are designed and manufactured to run Windows. You can claim it's an "anti-competitive hoodwink" but Microsoft just spent a decade with the US Justice Department's foot on its neck, specifically to prevent any anti-competitive hoodwinking. There's also nothing to…

I'm drawing attention to the fact that tying an OS to (what should be) generic hardware is anti-competitive, and in many countries, illegal. If it the hardware is OS-specific, it shouldn't be marketed as a 'PC'. Furthermore, the fact is that if I want a particular laptop PC, Windows is bundled in almost every instance, and I have to jump through hoops to force the manufacturer to take it back. It's not a conspiracy.…

Your understanding is wrong: there is no generic hardware. Nowadays, companies design laptops and qualify parts specifically to build Windows laptops. They follow design demands and specifications laid down by Microsoft and Intel, which is why they are all doing UEFI and many did netbooks and Ultrabooks.

Also, these are integrated packages so the idea that the OEM should take Windows back is illogical and nonsensical. It is a delusion that bears no relation to reality.

If you want a comforting thought, price is largely a function of volume, so you are getting massive benefits by riding on the back of the economies of scale created specifically by and for Windows. You are gaining far more in real cash savings than the trivial amount that you pay the OEM for its version of Windows.

In the long term, however, you should try to see this for what it is: a very pragmatic business. It's not religion.

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#169

Post by scholia »

fractallyte wrote: post #160
FireBeyond wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You appear to be entirely unaware that Microsoft has spent the best part of a decade responding and working with a Justice Department who was acting on behalf of frustrated or outraged consumers and competitors who believed exactly that. They came to a partial agreement with your position, whilst dismissing other claims entirely.

Conversely, in 2010 I had to resort to issuing a court summons to Samsung (UK) before they finally relented and gave me a refund on the unwanted Windows OS that was bundled with my laptop. It was annoying. Reading the headline, it appears that a similar annoyance is continuing even now.

They'd have been better off taking it back and charging you a restocking fee, and if the court actually considered the issue, it got it wrong. I'd be interested to know whether you said you didn't want Windows in the first place, or whether you were, in effect, a deceptive customer.

Either way, dealing with unprofitable customers is a losing strategy for any business.

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#170

Post by scholia »

Zak wrote: post #136
scholia wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you need to change the way you think about the PC industry and the way it produces integrated machines? Even if you skip the huge cost of qualifying parts for a different operating system, and sell PCs without any hardware or software support, there are still extra tracking and stock-keeping costs, and probably extra marketing costs. These will be high, in unit terms, because of the small number of units ship…

Plenty of machines have shipped with buggy drivers, poor OS support for the hardware and similar problems. I've never heard of a consumer PC manufacturer having legal liability for issues like that, and can't imagine it would be different with no preloaded OS or an explicitly unsupported preloaded OS. The Windows 8 EULA says: The manufacturer or installer and Microsoft exclude all implied warranties, including those…

A PC has an infinite number of uses and no company can guarantee that it will meet all those needs. Especially if people make them up after they've made the purchase, and don't specify them beforehand.

Otherwise, you should just be an honest buyer. If you don't want a Windows laptop, don't buy one. It's that simple.

Post reply on HN