back to article Microsoft dragging its feet on Linux Secure Boot fix

The Linux Foundation's promised workaround that will allow Linux to boot on Windows 8 PCs has yet to clear Microsoft's code certification process, although the exact reason for the hold-up remains unclear. As The Reg reported previously, the Secure Boot feature of the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) found on …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge

Re: Microsoft apologists miss the point

"Windows apologists like @Harmony preach that you can work around these lock-out systems."

There are three things wrong with the above statement. Firstly, you can work around it very easily, by just turning it off. It's no more complicated than switching a boot device in BIOS. It's actually less honest to "preach" that it's difficult to work around it, as you do. Secondly, "apologist" is a nasty word. It makes it sound like someone is justifying racism. If you genuinely see my posting factual corrections as being an apologist, it says far more about how you see things than it says about me. For you to see someone correcting misinformation here as I have been repeatededly doing as being an "apologist", you must have an incrediblly partisan view on things. I prefer my own neutrality, thanks. Thirdly, as it's so trivial to turn this off, it's only your desire to present it as a sinister move that makes you call it a "lock-out system". To nuetral parties it's a security measure that has demonstrable benefits (there is plenty of malware we can point at that will be successfully blocked by this). I wonder if you will be so angry about Secure Boot and call it a "lock out system" when Red Hat or SuSE start actively taking advantage of it. I suspect not.

I don't suppose I'll ever get an apology for being called an "apologist". Something that is an accusation of bias which I dislike. I don't think you'll be able to find any post that shows a biased point of view regarding OSs. In fact, go ahead and try.

1
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Microsoft apologists miss the point

Err... You complain about being told you're wrong by ACs then attack people based on your wilfully myopic view of a subject that you only ser as bad because bad because you saw ms were involved in it and knee jerked so hard you flipped yourself over. Try to understand a subject before commenting on it.

1
1

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Silver badge

Re: Microsoft apologists miss the point

"They can't put in a CD/DVD and instal now. They need specialist knowledge."

Changing a simple option from "On" to "Off" when it's clearly marked and easy to get to, is not "specialist knowledge". It's more complicated to download the ISO and burn that than it is to turn off Secure Boot. And if they need technical help with that, then surely the same source can tell them "press this button when you turn it on".

"Secondly, you can turn it off now, but it's a fair risk that in the future there will be no such option to turn it off."

You say that, but you offer no proof other than saying "that's what Microsoft would do". Besides, you've been arguing that it's a problem now. An argument that something is bad because of what might happen in the future is a different argument. That could be applied to a lot of good things.

"Microsoft have forced this "secure boot" (Trusted Computing by another name) and suddenly all the Linux guys have to get Linux to work with it, or be locked out"

MS haven't forced this on anyone. Secure Boot is not a MS product. They're merely the first to make proper use of it. And demonstrably Linux is not locked out of PCs by it. Any of us can still install Linux on a Windows 8 certified PC easily which means you are clearly wrong.

"You say, "Red Hat etc are "actively taking advantage" of it - that is bullshit they have no choice, and it's a real problem.

I think if I did say that, what I was saying was that RedHat *will* take advantage of it. I'll have to go back and check the quote but it doesn't sound right the way you put it. I do believe that RedHat will take advantage of it. And they'll be right to do so - it's useful.

"That is why you are an apologist, you try to justify Microsoft's unethical actions in the comments you make, usually with arguments that are fallacy."

So you couldn't actually find a post where I showed bias, then? And where is anything I've said a fallacy? Nearly everything that I've written here has just been a factual correction of misinformation.

1
2
Silver badge

Re: Microsoft apologists miss the point

I've gone back to see where you got that "quote" from me that I thought sounded suspiciously unlike something I would write. I've found what I originally wrote and you have misquoted me and actively misrepresented what I wrote. That's a pretty low thing to do.

This is what you wrote:

"You say, "Red Hat etc are "actively taking advantage" of it - that is bullshit they have no choice, and it's a real problem"

This is what I actually wrote:

"I wonder if you will be so angry about Secure Boot and call it a "lock out system" when Red Hat or SuSE start actively taking advantage of it. I suspect not."

You should consider that when you need to start misrepresenting what someone says in order to argue with them, you have crossed bounds into setting your own desire to "win" an argument above your respect for actual truth. Your posts have been riddled with dubious misrepresntations and suppositions as well as insults such as calling people "apologists". You're a zealot, in short.

1
1
Silver badge
Linux

Re: Microsoft apologists miss the point

> It's more complicated to download the ISO and burn that than it is to turn off Secure Boot. And if they need technical help with that, then surely the same source can tell them "press this button when you turn it on".

Counter-example: Linux Magazine cover CD:s, no burning required. The magazines will probably try to explain how to turn of secure boot, but the details of the operation are likely to differ between machines, so things definitely will be more difficult than before.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Microsoft reason of doing this

They want to let less Linux and more windows onto computers.simple as that.An attempt to suppress Linux.Selfish,but it works.they also take the chance to earn money from Linux.

1
1
Silver badge

Re: Microsoft reason of doing this

"they also take the chance to earn money from Linux."

Do you really think Microsoft are motivated by a $US99 fee they get from RedHat or SuSE asking them to sign a bootloader? Because that's how much has been charged.

1
2

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Silver badge

Re: Microsoft reason of doing this

"How much are you paid for this PR guff?"

Addressed to me? I'm not paid to post at all nor remunerated in any other way nor expect to be. I have no affiliation with any of the businesses involved in this story nor expect to. Accusations of being an astro-turfer is just an ad hominim. There's nothing that I've written here that I can't back up with actual sources or clear reasoning.

1
1

This post has been deleted by its author

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018