Linus Torvalds: I will not change Linux to “****-****** Microsoft”

[fdrake]

i don't really see the issue here. It is microsoft right to secure/lock their system if they feel it is in danger. Of course that doesn't prevent somone to get acces to their data, but so what? it's their choise, good or bad...

I personally think that if you need to dualboot, it is already a time wasting process, so stopping first at the UEFI screen won't really change that much time in the end.

loading the foreign secretely compiled keys into the kernel directly it's a huge risk ! Period. I don't care if you want to attract new users etc... it just goes against the whole idea of opensource and security. They should let the end user choise if they want these keys to be signed and loaded into their kernel or not. For some security is a choise/option, for others is a neccessity.

Garrett replied that he can't see Red Hat getting into the key signing business. Peter Jones, a Red Hat software engineer and member of the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee, agreed: " Red Hat will not sign kernel modules built by an outside source. We're simply not going to sign these kernel modules. That's one of the big reasons we want a setup where they can sign their own modules in the first place."

from : http://www.zdnet.com/torvalds-strong...el-7000011811/

[Mathor]

Call me stupid but I'm completely lost in the whole UEFI-Microsoft-Canonical-Red_Hat-Linux_Foundation saga.

If I buy a new PC now from a common-or-garden high street retailer will I be able to replace Windows 8 with a GNU/Linux OS? Will my choice be restricted to Fedora/Ubuntu? Does "Ubuntu" include other distros that use the Ubuntu repositories e.g. Mint?

I purchased a brand new HP machine preloaded with Windows 8 on it about a week ago. HP allows the user (and Microsoft leaves this option up to the vendor) to easily turn off UEFI by just a simple right arrow selection in BIOS. Once you have done this, you can boot from a USB, CD, or whatever you would normally boot using Linux. HP and Dell allow you to turn off secureboot very easily. I have heard on other machines that it is possible to turn off secureboot, but I have heard that it is a tragically difficult process.

I appreciate HP and Dell allowing their users to have a choice. After all, even without Linux being involved, downgrading to Windows 7 is also prevented on machines with secureboot. Users have the same amount of control over their computer as they do over their XBOX machines, in that case.

You can only thank Ubuntu for this, and their friendship with Dell and HP. That being said, once secureboot is disabled, you can boot any distro you'd like.

EDIT: And why exactly would one want to boot back into Windows 8?? It is a useless piece of UI. Even for schoolwork and occupations that use proprietary software, dualbooting with Windows 7 is not only much easier, but a more sensible solution. I seriously doubt you will ever see a school library or an office building that uses Windows 8. Linus is right. It's a waste of code.

[Paqman]

And that is the issue here, really we should be fighting this not catering to the whims of one of the most anti competitive companies of all time.

And how exactly would we do that? We're a tiny minority of computer users, we don't really have enough clout to bother Microsoft.

As for why they implemented Secure Boot, it was nothing to do with perceiving desktop Linux as a threat. Secure Boot was put there because:

• It's actually a good idea.
• It could be used to lock down their ARM-based Win8 machines, which would allow Win8 to get a foot in the door against Android.

So I'll concede that Microsoft do consider Linux a threat, if you mean Android Linux. The idea that they'd actually bother taking action against desktop Linux is a bit silly. It would be like the Pentagon making preparations to defend the US against invasion by Fiji.

[prodigy_]

All in all this story proves once again that no corporation, be it RedHat, Google or any other, can be a true supporter of Linux and FOSS community. They make money on Linux one way or another, but they care only about money, never about Linux.

[fdrake]

All in all this story once again proves that no corporation, be it RedHat, Google or any other, is a true supporter of Linux and FOSS community. They make money on Linux one way or another, but they care only about money, never about Linux.

you know what they say: you get what you give.Microsoft and google did not come from the sky, ppl made them rich and powerful.
people around the world don't give a damn about FOSS, opendsource and linux, and that is why we endup having this kind of problem and being monotored by big companies. Man is a lazy, opportunistic being....

we could have better technologies if it wasn't for the copyright and propietary software licenses.

[MadmanRB]

i don't really see the issue here. It is microsoft right to secure/lock their system if they feel it is in danger. Of course that doesn't prevent somone to get acces to their data, but so what? it's their choise, good or bad...

I personally think that if you need to dualboot, it is already a time wasting process, so stopping first at the UEFI screen won't really change that much time in the end.

loading the foreign secretely compiled keys into the kernel directly it's a huge risk ! Period. I don't care if you want to attract new users etc... it just goes against the whole idea of opensource and security. They should let the end user choise if they want these keys to be signed and loaded into their kernel or not. For some security is a choise/option, for others is a \

What a flip flopper, on one hand you seem pro microsoft but on the other hand seem supportive of opensourse.
MAKE UP YOUR MIND!
Support for UEFI is support for microsofts anti competitive behavior and must be called out for the bullcrap that it is.

[*]It could be used to lock down their ARM-based Win8 machines, which would allow Win8 to get a foot in the door against Android.

Well yes microsoft is scared of android, thats because windows 8 is a sick pathetic OS.

[fdrake]

What a flip flopper, on one hand you seem pro microsoft but on the other hand seem supportive of opensourse.
MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

i don't support Microsoft , i am just saying that they are not doing anything wrong or illegal.

Support for UEFI is support for microsofts anti competitive behavior and must be called out for the bullcrap that it is.

that's where you are wrong.UEFI has nothing to do or to be blamed about it.

I just think that if you want linux you can still install it on your pc. UEFI is not the real problem here, nor microsoft. The market knows that the average user is dump. they just want to give their costumer a box that lets them use facebook, youtube and tweeter. that's all the market cares about. Possibly making this box a secure and not accessible with the minimum amount of efford from the end user.

[zombifier25]

What a flip flopper, on one hand you seem pro microsoft but on the other hand seem supportive of opensourse.
MAKE UP YOUR MIND!
Support for UEFI is support for microsofts anti competitive behavior and must be called out for the bullcrap that it is.

Why don't you try to be a reasonable person for once instead of all these close-minded rants about how Microsoft and UEFI is going to doom the world and we should use BIOS for another 30 years? Thanks but no thanks, I would rather stick with a modern and up-to-date bootloader rather than a hopelessly outdated piece of software that should have went out 10 years ago. Remember, UEFI != Microsoft.

I agree with Paqman; Secure Boot is put there because it's a good idea, and it can be used to help lockdown Windows tablets. Also, it's put there because most of the users will not care what the heck it is, and those who do either are too insignificant or know how to work around it anyway. NTLDR and BOOTMGR does not recognize Linux, and we don't see people complaining about that, because most of us don't care. If we are installing Linux on a Windows machine, then we know this would happen. Heck, let's complain how new Windows machines don't come loaded with a option allowing you to choose between Windows or Linux.

If you want a Linux computer, then you'll buy a empty or Linux-loaded machine, or you'll buy a Windows machine and manually install Linux on it. It has been that way.

I'm not saying that Microsoft is the good guy; yes, they may be taking advantage of UEFI to make it harder for install Linux, but you should try to look at this from another perspective other than this usual anti-Microsoft goggles that some of us have been refusing to take off.

[Paqman]

Support for UEFI is support for microsofts anti competitive behavior and must be called out for the bullcrap that it is.

No it isn't.

• UEFI is NOT a Microsoft technology. It was originally developed by Intel.
• UEFI can be implemented without Secure Boot. Apple have been using it for years.
• UEFI is the replacement for BIOS. BIOS is old and broken and has been in need of replacement for years. Whether we use UEFI or not has NOTHING to do with Microsoft or Secure Boot. Secure Boot is just part of Microsoft's particular implementation of UEFI.

TL;DR: Your problem is with Secure Boot, not UEFI. UEFI is a good thing.

[mamamia88]

Well in my case, after dual booting for a while, realized I didn't need MS
products at all. Last purchased Microsoft OS was XP.

True your last purchase was xp. But 99% of people stick with whatever came with the computer. And even the ones who don't chances are it started out with windows. So yeah what does Microsoft care if I use linux as long as I bought a computer with windows on it originally? It's the greatest business model in the world for them anyway. And paqman what is broken about bios? Honestly I couldn't care less if my pc uses bios or uefi as long as it boots up properly.