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

91–100 of 178 posts

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

#91

Post by vog »

Zak wrote: post #74
dheerosaur wrote: post #65

I paid money (I don't know how much, but will be close to 50-100 dollars) for Windows 8 when I bought my Dell Inspiron Special Edition because it had good hardware, but Dell didn't provide an option to get it without the OS. It was the only affordable laptop available with 1080p screen. After a week of many annoyances, I decided to delete all the Windows partitions. After installing Ubuntu using Legacy boot, I tried…

I paid money for Windows 8 when I bought my Dell Dell almost certainly preloaded some software in exchange for compensation that almost certainly exceeded what Dell paid for their Windows license. Even ignoring the testing, support and return issues people usually bring up, Dell probably couldn't sell the computer for a lower price with no OS or a free OS without losing money. In short, third parties effectively paid…

Dell probably couldn't sell the computer for a lower price with no OS or a free OS without losing money

I find this hard to believe, even when considering all the mechanisms you mentioned. Do you have any evidence for this very counter-intuitive hypothesis?

IOW: Citation needed

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

#92

Post by jagermo »

dscrd wrote: post #55
wmf wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It prevents you from using Windows Loader to pirate Windows. (That's a benefit... to Microsoft.)

They're absolutely out of their fucking minds if they think this is a good idea. People are already slowly oozing towards better operating systems, and if they actually manage to remove the possibility to run their shitty OS without any cost, they're totally screwed.

where did they remove the possibility? To be honest, anyone who is able to install another OS should be able to check the BIOS.

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

#93

Post by zimbatm »

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 the geeks' camp. "Secure Boot" doesn't really protect the end-user, viruses and trojan mostly operate in the user-space and exploit kernel security holes anyways. This term is misleading, what it secures is Microsoft's position, letting them dictate whatever they want to manufacturers.

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

#94

Post by ElliotH »

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.

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

#95

Post by vy8vWJlco »

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.

See: Lenovo K800, Lava XOLO X900, or any of the new-ish X86 phones (Atom SoCs) with locked bootloaders that will only boot the pre-installed Android, or whatever originally came with the phone. You may revise and say "Sure, but I meant on the desktop..." but if current trends continue, tablets and phones will continue to supplant if not replace desktops/laptops for most users. Unless consumers put on the breaks and steer strongly towards open hardware, we're looking at a future with a lot of single-purpose/corporate-owned appliances IMHO. As usual, money talks, so: buy freedom.

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

#96

Post by [deleted] »

jeltz wrote: post #81
sillysaurus wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter that the outcome is nothing. What matters is that you agreed to give up your rights. It's an opening for them if they should choose to pursue action against you.

As DannyBee said, I doubt a court would hold you to those terms.

[deleted]

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

#97

Post by rbanffy »

Zr40 wrote: post #61
comex wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the article (clearly) says, since USB is not set up fast enough to recognize a keyboard before the bootloader has handed control to the OS, there's no way to interrupt boot to do so; Windows will let you reboot to another OS, but only after you click through a license agreement.

Surely a physically present user (mentioned by the requirement of point 18) can disconnect the boot device in order to prevent Windows from booting. The firmware then has ample time to set up USB and allow the user to enter firmware setup. Alternatively, as a workaround, find someone who has already accepted said agreement elsewhere and have them accept it on your device, disable secure boot and wipe the boot device.

> a physically present user (mentioned by the requirement of point 18) can disconnect the boot device in order to prevent Windows from booting.

I believe that would void most warranties.

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

#98

Post by Ayabashi »

_pmf_ wrote: post #89

> In fact, i'd go so far as to say that if Microsoft ever actually tried to enforce, it would run them into serious regulatory trouble. The main interest of Microsoft is to keep their OEMs in control. Even if it is legal for the end-user to circumvent the protection, the following will probably still hold true: - Microsoft can still contractually bind their OEMs to implement the protection scheme - Microsoft can stil…

Windows 8 installs and runs on machines without Secure Boot enabled, so I don't understand what you're talking about.

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

#99

Post by rbanffy »

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…

> Apple is not allowing arbitrary OS to run on their system

Microsoft is not allowing arbitrary OSs to run on Dell's, Acer's, Lenovo's and Toshiba's hardware. If Microsoft wants to limit what Microsoft hardware can do, I'm fine with it - I just won't buy from them.

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

#100

Post by rbanffy »

Zr40 wrote: post #60
cookiecaper wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Secure Boot is ostensibly a security feature, making it impossible to load kernel-level code that hasn't been signed by an authority recognized by the device's hardware. The idea is that this makes it harder for nefarious actors to do nefarious things to your system, because they'll be blocked from the most basic access to the system hardware and be forced through normal OS security channels. In practice, of course,…

Secure Boot isn't about lock-in, at least not on PCs. To qualify for the Windows Logo program, it must be possible to disable Secure Boot.

As TFA notes, this may involve repeated resets during boot, added hardware and a whole lot of steps my mother wouldn't take. She'd just be coerced to use Windows.
Post reply on HN