|
When Microsoft announced its new version of Windows, Windows 8, much debate began about one of the system requirements, the Secure Boot.
For a while now we are reading about UEFI, as technology of replacement to BIOS. In fact, Gigabyte is one of the first companies to bet on this technology, for now through a dual system, but they have already announced the definitive elimination of the BIOS. |
Now, this UEFI system has a feature, Secure Boot, whose purpose is to prevent malware from taking over the system and thus increase the level of security. Undoubtedly UEFI is a step forward and Secure Boot too.
The system, which is not new, works with certain keys, or keys, hosted in the firmware. This key is used to sign when software needs to run, if it cannot be signed, said software cannot run.
|
| Comparison between BIOS and UEFI |
That said, it is not a new technologyIn fact, Intel has been working on it and GNU / Linux has support for this system and Secure Boot, both with LiLo and Grub. In fact, most new motherboards have this feature, but disabled by default.
The problem would lie in the way in which Microsoft intends for it to be implemented so that your Windows 8 is able to run whenever, beforehand, would prevent new software from being added to the White list or list of software allowed to be signed. The explanation: "safety reasons", with a strong impact on user freedom. I don't believe it.
On the other hand, it has been noticed that with the Secure Boot active the way Microsoft wants it, the hardware that we want to install and that requires an "unapproved" or unsigned driver would be useless.
“A hardware vendor cannot run their hardware inside the EFI environment unless their drivers are signed with a key that's included in the system firmware. If you install a new graphics card that either has unsigned drivers, or drivers that are signed with a key that's not in your system firmware, you'll get no graphics support in the firmware. »
If Microsoft extorts companies like Samsung into paying royalties for every Smartphone they sell with Android in exchange for not suing them for "infringing" their hardware patents, What PC vendor will want to sell their products with Secure Boot OFF if Windows requires it to be ON? One of the questions that concern.
It is true that Microsoft outlined a kind of clarification that did not bring many lights, that is why Linux kernel technicians, Red Hat and Canonical, have analyzed the situation and have warned about this situation.
As a result they have issued a document where they detail the undeniable advantages of UEFI, but warn that a logical, consistent and non-restrictive implementation of Secure Boot is necessary to guarantee the freedom of users to install GNU / Linux alongside Windows -or in its replacement. In other words, the way it should be implemented according to Microsoft's demands on its OEMs is insane.
In this document, two alternatives are put on the table, one of them a modifying the whitelist of software supported by Secure Boot; or a simple way to do it; or one simple way for the user to be able to remove this function; something that would prevent a correct operation of Windows to the state of today.
There is still a way to go and if these suspicions are confirmed, a judicial complaint such as the one that originated with respect to Internet Explorer in Windows 7 would not be rare.
One thing is for sure, if the GNU / Linux market share is as low as some websites of dubious objectivity say, Why is Microsoft so concerned with disproving them with such monopolistic and restrictive attitudes?
Anyway, we will see how this novel ends and hopefully the end is not as it seems.
This is like selling cars with the accelerator locked so that they do not give more than 40 km / h and thus reduce accidents, or bottles of wine with the spout sealed to reduce alcoholism. Are they going to force me to buy very expensive "keys" to be able to run the application that I wrote myself to let me know when the water is ready for the mate? This is not an advance nor does it have to do with security, it is a loss that computer users will suffer because we will no longer be able to decide what we use them for. TO PROGRAM CRACKS RIGHT NOW.
I'm a newbie to Linux, I've only been using fuduntu 6 for 14 months, and I start to think about what this article says.
If I'm really leaving Windows, in my personal case I wouldn't care at all that Windows 8 comes with those types of obstacles, since I use Win7 only to synchronize my iPhone, and because I haven't had the opportunity to learn a little more to be able to do it. desde linux. And I asked myself; Are there really people who use Linux who are worried because Windows 8 brings that with it? Are the most veteran Linux users interested in "trying or using Windows 8?", I've only been there for 6 months and I don't care anymore...
Taking advantage of a query I am in the process of buying a hard disk, can I install said disk and format it with a linux distro? or do I have to depend on windows for formatting? Thanks in advance and greetings
true what of these anectodas, the matter is complicated since it falls into the funny in the discriminative and what should not be. Today the employment problem we already know how it is, and situation, there are those who employ for a lower salary and without being trained people, there if this poor guy does not know anything about what he is selling, and so it happens with many products and services, greetings
You can easily format it with Linux (you can even format it in formats supported by Windows, such as NTFS, FAT, etc.).
You can use "Disk Utility" for such a noble task.
Cheers! Paul.
Do they warn or warn? Well, the article is different from that of Desde Linux, which scares what they say a little, since they tell us that Canonical and Red Hat agree with this system
Although the user quota is low it scares them, it is normal for this to happen until they recover from Hasefroch Bosta's shit
Yes, I have seen that article; but it is the only article I read that states it wrongly from the title every time it says things halfway.
In addition, it lacks logic: if the form of implementation that Microsoft requires its OEMs is restrictive to the freedom of users so that they can install a GNU / Linux distribution, it would be foolish for two companies that base their business on Open Source, Canonical and Red Hat, agree to this system that would harm them.
Canonical, Red Hat, and a kernel developer contributed to the document. They are not against Secure Boot, which on the other hand is present in these times and the Grub is compatible.
The problem, as the PDF indicates, is how Microsoft needs / wants Secure Boot to be implemented for its Windows 8 to work (to today's state, maybe they will change), because to "increase security" it would not be possible to modify the list of "allowed" of Secure Boot.
That is the problem.
Come on, you were the Martin who made the first comment on the article
Be careful with the wording
What PC vendor would want to sell their products with Secure Boot OFF without Windows requiring it to be ON?
should be
What PC vendor will want to sell their products with Secure Boot OFF if Windows requires it to be ON?
I have always thought that laptop companies called Samsung, Acer, Hp, Lenovo, Dell etc. should sell their computers giving the user the decision of what operating system they want and not force the user to buy horrible and poorly made systems as happened with the WindowsVista; which in my view was a real scam worldwide.
and what Microsoft wants to do with Secure Boot is MONOPOLY ..
Regarding the first question, the answer is yes
And regarding the second I understand that this system does not prevent us from installing Linux, anyway I am going to leave you an article where you can find a better explanation:
ext4[dot]wordpress[dot]com/2011/09/23/y-efectivamente-windows-8-no-impedira-el-arranque-de-linux-en-los-nuevos-equipos/
There is something that I do not quite understand in this matter. Would it affect all PCs that are sold with windows 8 installed from now on? Could you still install Linux while deleting Windows completely, without dual boot?
Thanks… it was a typo. Now I correct it.
Cheers! Paul.
Unfortunately sometimes I have to send my colleagues from uL to the RAE haha
Surely it is not by any linux distribution, but by google OS or Android
Regarding the second question: IT DEPENDS.
The implementation as required by Microsoft today, despite its feeble attempt at explanation, no. Not because Secure Boot is a feature of UEFI, the system that is proposed as a replacement for motherboard BIOS.
Ha! Thanks for sharing your anecdote… something similar happened to me.
Mr. Lawyer. Thank you for your article. The normal thing would be to sell computers and laptops WITHOUT OPERATING SYSTEMS. The customer finds out and chooses between "proprietary" software (WINDOWS or APPLE) or Free Software. That to begin to clarify concepts. Back in 1989 it was like that. MS-DOS was bought separately!
Either the brand computer (IBM, TANDON, etc) or one assembled based on buying individual parts.
Today there is some movement in Holland that demands that the money be returned for the NO-requested, which is the
Windows. The difference is about 70-90 euros / device. Today putting Windows per system is the same as charging a digital fee.
Hopefully it does not happen that we need to ask before acquiring a pc or laptop if it is our property or we have to limit ourselves to what the manufacturers put in "our" firmware ...
My question is the following, we know that entrepreneurs and corporations do not develop in the rule of law in which most of us live, because we follow the rules of these, bastards without limits, it is evident that corporations are not going to ,. restrain Linux users because of this a priori choice of free so, we should all be promoting and spreading philosophies or ways of living that allow us what we are, free people because I don't see more linuxers spreading Zeitgeist with their venus project. This outrage to our freedom of choice not only happens with the boot of a pc, it happens when they force you to eat transgenic food, always vote for the same type of person, we must stop complaining and show them our power. spreading nothing else.
Also good to see that Linux, we comment with name and surname congratulations guys
I went to a business in San Justo and they told me that Ubuntu "was a virus" Not to believe!
The next is that from M $ they force the operating system to come in a rom, and that's it. But for them it is not an option to improve the system so that it is not so simple that the user loses everything. The option is to fight the competition and make increasingly beautiful and heavy stews.
An anecdote in relation to what Gonzalo Torres tells in his comment. I went to a Depot branch (in the city of bsas, cordoba street). I ask the seller, "Do you have any notebook that comes without a pre-installed operating system?" The salesperson looks at me flustered and says, "Is that possible?" Plop! (as condorito ended). Hello seller friend, hardware is different than software. salu2
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS, IS IT SERIOUS ????? THAT MEANS THAT IF WE HAVE A NEW SOFTWARE THAT REQUIRES A NEW SPECIAL HARDWARE AND DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNATURE, IT WOULD NOT SERVE ME THE SOFTWARE OR THE HARDWARE ???
THE TRUTH THAT I DO NOT LIKE THAT TECHNOLOGY AT LEAST, SINCE THROUGH THE BIOS AT LEAST WE CAN INSTALL ANY HARDWARE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS SIGNED OR NOT, WE ONLY NEED THE RIGHT AND READY DRIVER
THE SOLUTION? USE LINUX 😀
So is…
There they are painted, something true and that if you are concerned about free software, because it is stable and Sbretodo SAFE. why so scared microsoft? not what are the giants?
Network security is very important. We are not aware of the risks we run.
In this article they talk about it. http://bit.ly/sK4aqu They teach you to protect yourself from the dangers of the Internet, not from spam, viruses, but from hidden dangers, which we do not know.
Regards!
Microsoft
monopoly
if microsoft> = monopoly do
write ('You are a scammer from the beginning and you do not know how to accept your opponents')
End yes