Feel Free to Bitcoin Tip: 135Rp4pwwYTHEJ4u8bxKaDQiC91N9LUoV2
Backtrack - Giving machine guns to monkeys since 2006
Kali-Linux - Adding a grenade launcher to the machine guns since 2013
Has openSuSE mastered UEFI? Here's from a recent review:
"I was very surprised, pleased and impressed to find that the openSuSE installer handles UEFI, including Secure Boot, with no trouble at all, including detecting and mounting the EFI boot partition."
OpenSuSE 12.3: In-depth and hands-on
Fantastic! I'm going to start visiting here more often again. Just what we want robust but polite and open discussionThis is an interesting developing a a valid topic of discussion. Please let's keep a respectful tone towards fellow members and other software companies.
A useful post from Michael Garrett, who quite likely knows more about this than anyone in this thread. Garrett thinks the Spanish initiative will fail because the Commission has already ruled that Secure Boot conforms to EU law. He also distinguishes between "secure boot" and something he calls "restrictive boot".
This is not the simplest of issues:
UEFI is not secure boot.
Restricted boot is not secure boot.
Potential boot-time attacks are not an imaginary threat, on Linux or Windows.
The Secure Boot standard requires OEM's to enable users to disable it and to use their own keys. Some OEM's have not done that.
Given that OEM's make x86 hardware to sell exclusively into the Windows market, you don't need to conjure conspiracy theories about Evil Microsoft ordering OEM's around. OEM's are catering to the only market, as far as they are concerned, that exists: Windows.
Microsoft's implementation of secure boot is *not* good for Linux. It *does* strengthen Microsoft's market dominance. But, Linux cannot respond to it appropriately unless the Linux community knows what it is talking about.
In the longer run, the greater threat to Linux comes from the completely closed and locked-down devices like tablets and phones. Vendors love them and customers don't care, or even notice, that they're locked down. The days of a desktop comprised of interchangeable parts accessible to a user are on the way out. Tomorrow's desktop will consist of discrete, locked-down, components cabled or docked together.
Linux: You reap what you tweak.
No, it's vendors locking their own hardware to Windows 8 in some cases. There's nothing stopping ANY of them from shipping a Windows 8 computer without Secure Boot. Windows 8 works perfectly fine without Secure Boot or even UEFI.MS is trying to vendor lock everyone else's x86 hardware though. Feel the difference.
Vendors want to do it so their products don't look deficient compared to others, and so they can have a meaningless little sticker on the product saying "Certified for Windows 8". That's all.
There's nothing wrong with Secure Boot if you can add your own keys or disable it. The key adding process could be a little more user-friendly, okay. The problems arise when OEMs only implement the ability to boot Windows, without the ability to add new keys or disable the system. Intel should have known the OEMs can't necessarily be trusted.
I try to treat the cause, not the symptom. I avoid the terminal in instructions, unless it's easier or necessary. My instructions will work within the Ubuntu system, instead of breaking or subverting it. Those are the three guarantees to the helpee.
It is inevitable that any vendor selling a complete PC is going to try to maximize the revenue it generates. (The goal is profit; the product is only a means to that end.) The obvious way to do that is to build a system that is compatible with only itself. So, if a user wants to add more memory, or more storage, or better video, they either must upgrade the entire package or buy a branded component from the vendor.
That was pretty much the situation in the very early days of the personal computer, before IBM released their PC and the dominance of MSDOS. A horde of similar-but-not-compatible PC-like machines targeting businesses existed that might or might run each other's software: Victor, Heath, Zenith, Amstrad, Texas, Osborne, KayPro, etc.etc. In the home market, Commodores weren't compatible with Apple which weren't compatible with Atari's which weren't compatible with Amiga's, and on and on and on.
Businesses ran the risk of finding themselves with a huge investment in hardware and software from a vendor that vanished, for one reason or another. Stuck, in other words, with a dead-end orphaned infrastructure.
Home users who bought hardware from a given vendor found themselves locked into the offerings of only that vendor. It's not fun, say, to have $4000 stuck in Atari or Amiga systems and wake up one morning to find the companies have gone away.
The de facto standardization brought about by the dominance of Microsoft and the PC hardware platform was *welcomed* by the vast majority of the market. Did it, and does it, restrict the choices available to users? Of course. But, for most users, those are choices they'd rather not have to make. And, usually, don't need to.
That's why Ubuntu, for example, is right to compete on terms of usability and functionality, rather than openness and freedom.
Last edited by buzzingrobot; March 28th, 2013 at 03:15 PM.