Jump to content



Photo

Secure Boot complaint filed against Microsoft


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#16 nub

nub

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 19-November 06
  • Location: Amerika

Posted 29 March 2013 - 01:05

I think most people who are upset are upset over the fact that Microsoft holds all the keys. Those keys should be held by a third party for all.


Fairly certain you can use secure boot without Microsoft at all. Fedora and some others opted to use the Microsoft key because it was easier.


#17 Stoffel

Stoffel

    Being on the ocean is cooler then being in front of a Computer

  • Joined: 16-August 11
  • Location: Utila, Honduras
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro

Posted 29 March 2013 - 01:09

I think most people who are upset are upset over the fact that Microsoft holds all the keys. Those keys should be held by a third party for all.


I don't think MS holds all the keys, I believe they are held by VeriSign.
Secure Boot is not a MS technology. They are just using it and I believe they also had to buy a key to use Secure Boot.
Other companies could also buy a key and use that in combination with Secure Boot.

#18 Enron

Enron

    Windows for Workgroups

  • Joined: 30-May 11
  • OS: Windows 8.1 U1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 900

Posted 29 March 2013 - 01:12

I think most people who are upset are upset over the fact that Microsoft holds all the keys. Those keys should be held by a third party for all.


We all know what happens when keys are given to Linux.

#19 remixedcat

remixedcat

    meow!

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 28-December 10
  • Location: Vmware ESXi and Hyper-V happy clouds
  • OS: Windows Server 2012 R2
  • Phone: I use telepathy and cat meows to communicate

Posted 29 March 2013 - 02:23

I think Verisign has the keys

#20 -Razorfold

-Razorfold

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 16-March 06
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 900

Posted 29 March 2013 - 02:29

Is there some reason that companies like RedHat and Canonical can't get a bootloader signed?

I think RedHat already implemented it in Fedora.

It costs $99 from Verisign:

The last option wasn't hugely attractive, but is probably the least worst. Microsoft will be offering signing services through their sysdev portal. It's not entirely free (there's a one-off $99 fee to gain access edit: The $99 goes to Verisign, not Microsoft - further edit: once paid you can sign as many binaries as you want), but it's cheaper than any realistic alternative would have been.


http://mjg59.dreamwi...tml?style=light

Plus you can just disable secure boot, it isn't that hard and since you'll be installing a new OS chances are you already know how to.

Pathetic lawsuit to try and earn money, that's really all it is.

#21 +_Alexander

_Alexander

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 21-January 13

Posted 29 March 2013 - 02:31

Things like this is why no one likes Linux and Linux users.

#22 articuno1au

articuno1au

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 20-March 11
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Posted 29 March 2013 - 02:35

I think you'll find a lot of us like Linux..

There's also a cross-party bootloader that's been signed. The idea being that it can load up any distro you want.

The complaint is pretty pants on head.. Especially given Microsoft submitted a patch Linux could use (which was ****, but they did it) and Linus Torvalds booted it out.

I think Linus made the right call on that one, but it does rather defeat the "anti-competitive" argument >.>

#23 redvamp128

redvamp128

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 06-October 01

Posted 29 March 2013 - 03:44

Things like this is why no one likes Linux and Linux users.


No this has nothing to do with LINUX not being good but Microsoft forcing Windows 8 on you....

I mean let me take Linux out of the equation for you.

Windows 8 runs like a snail or you just don't like it and you decide you want to buy and install Windows 7 instead

Whoops Not GOING TO ALLOW IT...
. you can't because the only OS your computer thinks is a Valid install is Windows 8.

And in some of the OEM's there is no bios option to remove or disable this check.
The easy way to edit this is allow the OEM's to have a bios that can be downloaded to allow people to turn it off.
What this boils down to is Allow the user the choice.

I mean what if people buy a PC with Windows 8 and decide they don't like it at all... and they want to install the following.

Windows 7
Linux
Hackintosh

But their computer won't allow them to do this.

This is as they are trying to show is the same option as Microsoft locking people into having IE installed by default.

-snip-
However, the computer is sold as computer with pre-installed Windows OS.
Stop crying and buy a Linux computer instead.

The other thing to look at is -- people say "BUY a Linux Computer" well that limits the choices and those choices are not very strong computers.
Other than -
https://www.system76.com


But still there are not a lot of options- They don't even offer any AMD chip-sets.

Some of these people don't mind paying for a computer with Windows but also like the CHOICE to have a dual boot as well.
I mean would you want a computer where you can't even choose which OS you want on it?
Side note-
And for my Wife that is a necessity to be able to boot to a USB key that has Suse for her work.  

The is what her company uses as it's business OS.

So for her it is that she get a computer that is not so new than?

That is the complaint in an easy nutshell. Where they claimed to secure an OS but it has side effect and that is limiting the choices people can have with their computers.

#24 TheExperiment

TheExperiment

    Starry

  • Joined: 11-October 03
  • Location: Elsewhere
  • OS: 8.1 x64

Posted 29 March 2013 - 04:27

That is the complaint in an easy nutshell. Where they claimed to secure an OS but it has side effect and that is limiting the choices people can have with their computers.

Every security solution has side effects. You don't like Secure Boot? TURN IT OFF. Then you can install whatever OS you like. Some claim some OEMs disable this, but I've never actually seen an example.

The difference between UEFI providing an option to secure your computer and MS locking down said computer should be fairly obvious. That some people don't see the distinction does no credit to their logic.

#25 redvamp128

redvamp128

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 06-October 01

Posted 29 March 2013 - 04:29

Every security solution has side effects. You don't like Secure Boot? TURN IT OFF. Then you can install whatever OS you like. Some claim some OEMs disable this, but I've never actually seen an example.

The difference between UEFI providing an option to secure your computer and MS locking down said computer should be fairly obvious. That some people don't see the distinction does no credit to their logic.


Acer- Emachine - Gateway to name a few... There is no option to disable it at all-- it is missing.

The logic is there but the point is -- locking out user choice.

I personally like to dual boot either with WUBI or a true Dual boot.

And such like my wife needs for her work the newer systems don't allow it. (namely SUSE her job uses)

#26 TheExperiment

TheExperiment

    Starry

  • Joined: 11-October 03
  • Location: Elsewhere
  • OS: 8.1 x64

Posted 29 March 2013 - 04:31

Acer-/ Emachine - Gateway to name a few...

I still haven't seen an example.

Even on the off chance they don't let you disable it, Linux has already worked around the Secure Boot issue. It's not even an issue anymore.

#27 redvamp128

redvamp128

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 06-October 01

Posted 29 March 2013 - 04:36

I still haven't seen an example.


I had a friend bring me his All in one with Windows 8
Acer Aspire AZS600-UR15


and wanted me to install Windows 7 on it- there was no option to turn off the check.

Windows 7 would pretend like it would install then at the point of installing boot loader - Fail- even when I placed a fresh drive int the machine.

It would not let it write to the boot sector.
I looked and there was nothing -- the only options were - to control boot order- check for extra hard drives and turn to compatibility mode.
I had to end up restoring the Windows 8.

#28 +_Alexander

_Alexander

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 21-January 13

Posted 29 March 2013 - 04:37

No this has nothing to do with LINUX not being good but Microsoft forcing Windows 8 on you....

I mean let me take Linux out of the equation for you.

Windows 8 runs like a snail or you just don't like it and you decide you want to buy and install Windows 7 instead

Whoops Not GOING TO ALLOW IT...
. you can't because the only OS your computer thinks is a Valid install is Windows 8.

And in some of the OEM's there is no bios option to remove or disable this check.
The easy way to edit this is allow the OEM's to have a bios that can be downloaded to allow people to turn it off.
What this boils down to is Allow the user the choice.

What a non argument!

A non-techie user will be content with latest Windows.
A techie user on the other hand should know better.

You have the choice either buy from a large company or build it yourself and install whatever you want on it.

Edited by _Alexander, 29 March 2013 - 04:38.


#29 redvamp128

redvamp128

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 06-October 01

Posted 29 March 2013 - 04:40

What a non argument!

A non-techie user will be content with latest Windows.
A techie user on the other hand should know better.

You have the choice either buy from a large company or build it yourself and install whatever you want on it.


So a user should be content with a system that lags? then? And they want to run a lower OS? - Priceless-
And upgrade of processor is not a valid option since it is a cpu/gpu built into an all in one .
Or you should be stuck with something they don't like then?

#30 seta-san

seta-san

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 17-February 05

Posted 29 March 2013 - 04:42

Probably because theoretically, They are knocking at the door and microsoft is behind the locked door giggling while Linux users scratch their heads.


it's abuse of a monopoly by locking out the competition from even experimenting with alternatives.



Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!