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

[sdowney717]

The regular population will want secure boot. They will think it is better, more secure, safer for their data. When they hear that to boot Linux they cant do a secure boot they will reject Linux even irrationally. Just tell them you got to turn off a secure boot to boot Linux and turn on a secure boot to boot good old normal windows and it will be a no brainer choice to make in favor for a more secure boot. Just another obstacle in the path to Linux, IMO!

Cant boot it Linux OS securely means to them something not right, not as good.

[Ender Shadow]

Just about everything. It doesn't support booting of modern operating systems on modern-sized disks (ie: >8.5GB), for a start. That's a pretty crucial weakness...

I have to disagree.
I had an almost 14 year old motherboard (with BIOS) and 20 GB hdd with Ubuntu 10.04 on it, and it booted just fine.
Now, I have a less than 2 month old motherboard (with UEFI) that sometimes fails to even recognize the hard drive.

[iamkuriouspurpleoranj]

The regular population will want secure boot. They will think it is better, more secure, safer for their data. When they hear that to boot Linux they cant do a secure boot they will reject Linux even irrationally. Just tell them you got to turn off a secure boot to boot Linux and turn on a secure boot to boot good old normal windows and it will be a no brainer choice to make in favor for a more secure boot. Just another obstacle in the path to Linux, IMO!

Cant boot it Linux OS securely means to them something not right, not as good.

You could be right. Communication is essential. Just point out that the US Army is a Red Hat customer and that the London Stock Exchange is a SUSE customer.

[aquarius18]

Thusd is the issue, we should not bow down to microsoft, linux is a competitor not a lap dog.
There should be a antitrust lawsuit here, but it wont happen becase most linux companies including canonical rather pay blood money then stand up for linuxes right to exist.

Yep, agree to the fullest.

They (M$) got everything to worry about when you look at the stats of the top 500 super computers: > 93% Linux, a few mixed and 3 or 4 M$ based.

Linux has made progress in leaps and bounds since I have been using various flavours and distros from 2009 onwards (yes, I am a newbee...).

Mobile phones are dominated by Android and growing in numbers, M$ is nowhere to be seen in the stats of the mobile phone market.

How many TV's are powered by M$???

There are still a few hurdles to jump before mums and dads changing their desktops from M$ to Linux, but lets face it: numbers are growing but fast.

M$ is trying to keep Linux out of machines with vendor installed Secure Boot Win 8 OS's as they can see the end of their time. And that's the only reason they have chosen this path - they are sh.. scared!

[prodigy_]

Just another obstacle in the path to Linux, IMO!

While "Secure" Boot is a misnomer (pure marketing, it should have been something like Controlled Boot or, even better, Restricted Boot) and the current implementation is an atrocity, it's not such a big obstacle. Anyone with half a brain can read a couple of articles on the subject and decide for themselves. And anyone who can't probably won't bother with migrating to Linux anyway.

[mJayk]

While "Secure" Boot is a misnomer (pure marketing, it should have been something like Controlled Boot or, even better, Restricted Boot) and the current implementation is an atrocity, it's not such a big obstacle. Anyone with half a brain can read a couple of articles on the subject and decide for themselves. And anyone who can't probably won't bother with migrating to Linux anyway.

I believe this is true, idiots who see the word Secure and therefore think they require it / its better.

[Paqman]

I have to disagree.
I had an almost 14 year old motherboard (with BIOS) and 20 GB hdd with Ubuntu 10.04 on it, and it booted just fine.
Now, I have a less than 2 month old motherboard (with UEFI) that sometimes fails to even recognize the hard drive.

That doesn't refute my point that BIOS is an outdated hacky mess, and is in need of a modern replacement. My point wasn't that BIOS couldn't boot a machine, it was that the code that it required to do so was a nightmare.

It's a bit like the situation with X. Changing such a fundamental component is not likely to be bug-free, but continuing to use it past it's use-by date becomes an ever-increasing maintenance headache, and holds back innovation.

[alexfish]

This is off the hip. well not so much as off the hip.

and No pun intended.

Linux as a Kernel is secure By It's self, it does no need a Key, or anything that gives sight of what the kernel is doing !

had seen a few posts relating to this article a while back , proof is about facts ,

Linus as the person is correct, and entitled to his thoughts , or opinion , end of.

Dual boot if you wish. that is at your request, give a key to do so , that is your honour.

Single boot with Linux then that be honour ,

There is only one way for Linux and it's way ,Linux. Free open and secure.

Time to decide . Linux and accept it. There are many institutions will baulk at the thought of introducing a foreigner, as in a separate key,

Linux boot , Linux will boot. No key required.

UEFI is not is not new in concept. Linux already has is it.

Another aspect, Licience , paid for once , or given free ,then what, all of your system then becomes PROPIORTY, in only one sence.PROPIORTY.

BR

Alex

[darkcrimson]

I love how it's being marketed as "Secure" boot. I suppose nobody would want it if it were called "Limited" boot or "Proprietary" boot.

[Paqman]

I love how it's being marketed as "Secure" boot. I suppose nobody would want it if it were called "Limited" boot or "Proprietary" boot.

Well, it does have both a security and a limiting role, so they're not actually wrong to call it that. But yes, one can't help but wonder which aspect of it got Microsoft most interested. Certainly they've shown no great urgency to replace BIOS until now.