[kwlug-disc] Windows 8 OEM specs may block Linux booting

[unsolicited]

Raul Suarez wrote, On 09/21/2011 5:07 PM:
> I hope it was properly conveyed that "It's our own fault" was tonge in 
> cheek.

Well, I certainly took it that way.

> But remember that for most people "PC" means Windows thanks to the 
> cleaver MS marketing and if you convince them that you are selling them 
> a "more secure PC" they may very well buy it.

Take that a step further - people have a 'Mac'. Not a computer.

> We know that having the ability to boot from CD is a big advantage for 
> support purposes but the users may be easily scared into thinking that 
> it is a security hole.

Presumably CDs will still be present, as would a signed mechanism.

How the H* have we instantly dismissed the first rule of security - 
physical security? If you don't watch who touches your hardware ... 
why does anyone not think all bets are off?


Eric Gerlach wrote, On 09/21/2011 4:48 PM:
 > However, they may also want to continue to support Windows 7, which
 > won't be signed either.
 >
 > This won't be an instant Linux-killer.

Excellent, point, thank you for making it.

L.D. Paniak wrote, On 09/21/2011 5:34 PM:
 > I find it hard to believe that hardware vendors are going to want to
 > get on the circus ride of locked bootloaders for the sake of the
 > software

They are already there and have been for some time. e.g. Dell's Linux 
offerings were not well known. I would guess that more pre-loaded 
systems are purchased than individual motherboards.

Software sells hardware, not the other way around. If a hardware 
manufacturer (e.g. HP) wants to sell what it manufactures, it needs to 
offer software on it that people want to buy. Eventually, that will be 
Windows 8 (presumably).

 > not-uncommon Linux servers.  Now they will have to keep two SKUs for
 > every motherboard that might possibly run Windows 8?

Oh, no doubt, this 'feature' will move to Windows Server 201x, too.

 > Sounds like pure genius from Redmond on how to make life difficult
 > for customers and hardware suppliers.  They are just dreaming that
 > they are Apple and have control over the whole ecosystem.

Wouldn't be the first time a 'feature' has been rescinded based upon 
oem and customer complaint / refusal to purchase.

Wouldn't be the first time a feature has survived for lack of such 
complaint.


As for FUD ... I take your very good points.

However, like 'false positives' there may be some useful element in 
getting the word out that 'this is out there' (/coming).

Granted - false positives can be deeply irritating and time wasting.

Occasionally the false positives aren't false. And until you 
investigate, there's no way to determine that. Well ... if your system 
is dead ... it's not likely a false positive. (-: