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

[mips]

Man has a way with words but I agree with him.

http://arstechnica.com/information-t...oat-microsoft/

The Linux kernel development process may welcome all those who love open source software and have the right coding chops, but one man remains the ultimate authority on what does and doesn't go into Linux—and he isn't afraid to let everyone know it.

The rants of Linux creator Linus Torvalds often become public through the Linux Kernel Mailing List archive. That's the open source way, and it gives us a glimpse into the thinking of the people behind one of the world's most widely used technologies.

The latest example comes from an argument between Torvalds and other Linux developers over whether the Linux kernel should include code that makes it easier to boot Linux on Windows PCs. This goes back to Microsoft requiring that PCs designed to run Windows 8 use UEFI firmware with the Secure Boot feature enabled. This has complicated the process of booting Linux on PCs that shipped with Windows 8, but it hasn't prevented people from doing so. There are workarounds, but some people are looking for a solution in the Linux kernel itself.

Read more...

Warning: Graphic language ahead

[MadmanRB]

Yeah I am surprised no one is fighting microsoft here, UEFI is just a tool for microsoft to take our liberties away and its too bad no one sees it.
I have always opposed secureboot, its anti competitive.
But hey what do I know, its getting rid of old school bios and that is all that matters right?
Screw the ability to use what operating system I want, that would be stupid!

[Rokkross]

UEFI is just a tool for microsoft to take our liberties away and its too bad no one sees it.

Well, it isn't. First, UEFI != Secure Boot. Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified...ware_Interface

Second, Secure Boot isn't necessarily bad if users have control over it. Microsoft signing the keys without giving people control is the problem, not the existence of a security feature. I mean, it's a security feature that most people don't have a use for, but I'm sure somebody wants it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified...ce#Secure_boot

[MadmanRB]

Bah, it still forces people to use windows.
Thus why its bad, and no one fought it which makes matters worse.

[sdowney717]

To more securely boot windows!
Alone

[MadmanRB]

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.

[Rokkross]

Bah, it still forces people to use windows.
Thus why its bad, and no one fought it which makes matters worse.

Unless you set it up not to. My point is that you shouldn't say f*** UEFI and f*** security features. In theory you -could- use this to set up a secure linux system. Microsoft's use of it is the problem, like I said.

[MadmanRB]

Yes but it forces linux to give blood money to microsoft.
This would not happen if the linux community was not so fragmented.

[matt_symes]

IMO, as a technology, the idea is great.

It would be much better in the hands of a truly independent body though.

[iamkuriouspurpleoranj]

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?