I used to read the Canonical blog, and just a news today is interesting to me.
En Canonical they agree with Secure Boot, support it, even when the vast majority of our community (such as the Free Software Foundation does not support it)
Today Canonical with Red Hat have published a writing on this issue, also including recommendations on how to implement Secure Boot In such a way as to ensure, it is always taken into account that the user must have total and absolute control of this mechanism.
Yes I agree on something, the BIOS in general of our computers has been obsolete for a long time, it needed changes to make the communication between hardware and software (firmware included obviously) more fluid, improve and take better advantage of our hardware, just no one yet he had "stepped forward." Maybe Microsoft gave it and only time will tell us the last word, but only because it is Microsoft who takes the initiative, precisely for this reason I reject him. They could call me "Taliban" yes, but when a company / CIA has done SO MUCH against what I use and like (Free software), eventually when you make a new move it will always generate doubts, fear and rejection.
Canonical in his article he acknowledges that he is concerned Secure Boot, because if a user buys a computer with Windows8, this computer will have Secure Boot en ON, which would make it difficult (or prevent) from installing your distro (Ubuntu), and this is something that obviously worries us all.
Canonical at no time opposes Secure BootIt just strongly recommends hardware makers to include an option to put in OFF This mechanism (Secure Boot) also clarifies that it must be friendly and easy to understand and use for the user, since the less inexperienced could not change this if it is not really easy.
Jeremy kerr (Technician of Canonical), James Bottomley (Kernel Developer) and Matthew garret (Senior Software Engineer in Red Hat) have expressed their opinions, as well as the agreements reached in a PDF called: Impact on Linux of Secure Boot
Anyway, this will undoubtedly raise both a wave of criticism, as well as great curiosity ... what I recommend is first read the PDF, then criticize or not 😉
regards
I think that the title does not agree with anything with the article in PDF or with the last half of the post. To say that Canonical and Red Hat support Windows 8 Secure Boot is wrong. First, because Secure Boot is not from Windows 8, it is a feature of the new technology that rises as a replacement for BIOS. The problem is the form of implementation that Microsoft requires; that form is the one that generates doubts and, regarding it, is that the article appears in PDF.
Nobody opposes the replacement of the BIOS; yes, people from the Kernel, Red Hat and Canonical have analyzed in detail this new proposal from Microsoft and, as it is, it would prevent the installation of software not authorized by Secure Boot.
That is why they suggest an easy way to disable it or to be able to change the list of allowed software so that Linux can be installed.
Clearly, however laudable end MS claims to pursue with the Secure Boot requirement, it has an impact on user freedom, and there is no doubt about it.
I insist, both the first part and the title of the entry are wrong.
regards
Good Martin,
First of all welcome to the site.
The problem is that the Secure Boot proposal, as an idea, innovation, new feature or future "came" from Microsoft, perhaps not from Redmond itself, but the proposal has always been linked to Windows8, since it is the one who is "in the forefront. " Of the same.
The simple fact that Secure Boot is part of UEFI and not actually Windows8, is a technical detail yes (and in turn reality obviously), but the question about whether Windows8 could be installed with SecureBoot disabled, for now and until now what I have been able to read, seems to indicate that no, if you have a link in which the opposite is explained I would be more than grateful to read it.
Obviously, nobody is opposed to a change, it is something that has become obsolete, it deserves a great improvement for quite some time.
Greetings and once again, welcome to the site.
Hello thank you very much.
Secure Boot is a UEFI feature that Intel began to develop in 2000. All distributions, whether with the old LiLo or with Grub, have UEFI support; what's more, most motherboards have Secure Boot support, but disabled by default.
The problem is the way Microsoft wants it to be implemented because it would not allow new software to be added to the "whitelist" to Secure Boot and thus be signed with the key stored in the firmware.
As you say, Windows for now is not capable of running without Secure Boot; then to alleviate this problem is that they have proposed alternative solutions without ruling out UEFI; Rather, it is implemented in a non-restrictive way, contrary to what Microsoft intends.
regards
Rather, the problem is in the way Microsoft requires it to be implemented (by its partner OEMs) for Windows 8 to work.
0_0 Interesting ...
Excellent explanation, and it was just as I feared ... Microsoft in order to increase your security (or decrease your insecurity, however you want to see it) will harm us all, Windows users or not.
Thanks to you for your visit and comment.
Greetings.
Exactly, the problem is not in UEFI or Secure Boot, but in the follies of Microsoft that suddenly worries about security, but instead of making a good product, it seeks a solution that restricts the freedom of users.
Everything Micro $ oft does is to get money out of you.
Extremists and radicals as they have always been, and then they criticize me when I always frown on any "new" Microsoft product.
Anyway friend, a real pleasure to have you here 😉
Haha KZKG ^ Gaara because you have also received a criticism by uL in the same article and by Martín hahaha
I did not understand that Courage 0_0U
Damn, you already have an age (grandfather) to understand it ...
http://usemoslinux.blogspot.com/2011/10/canonical-y-red-hat-avierten-peligros.html
Ah yes, I already read ...
And since we are, the title is not so wrong or wrong, Red Hat and Canonical are NOT opposed (as is the case of the FSF) to Secure Boot, much less, they support it but only with certain changes, such as having an easy option to switch from ON to OFF.
That the title could have been more accurate, yes, I admit it, it was quite a hectic day for me and after publishing the article I was able to read the PDF (and not complete, because I did not have enough time).
I don't think there is much more to say no?
I thank (as I did before) Martin for his comment, if his intention was to criticize just to criticize, point out errors or the opposite, I am not interested, I learned something new with these comments and that is what matters.
Zas !!! across the face to the sandy.
Hey out of curiosity Where did Sandy come from? I just didn't get it ...
KZKG ^ Gaara = Kazekage Gaara from Naruto Shippuden, he is the head of the village hidden in the sand and he attacks with sand and stuff.
Hahaha exactly .. Go to win in culture ... Click here Jejeje
Haha I understand, I did not know that anime
Hahahahaha .. Sandy hahahaha I can't stop laughing when I see that hahahahaha
Well ok I got it, yes I knew Naruto but I have never seen him, I think it is not an anime style for me
I've had enough with this:
And who told you that? 0_oU
Was it in uL?
Haha yes, it was the boss by mail, I did not know that the RAE did so much damage, I already had enough for you to call me uneducated about Naruto hahahaha
Hahahaha there they gave you, for an asshole hahahaha
It's not that you're uneducated, it's just that you don't have as much knowledge as we do ... HAHAHAHAHA
Hey I only said "vantana" once in a uL article, no chronic ganism today hahaha
Hahahaha look, I said it a long time ago on the elav blog and I got into flame with some guys.
Hasecorp and Canoni $ oft were in cahoots and time has proved me right. And that of Red Hat seems very bad, look that I had more respect for them but it gives me that they are going to lose it
Excuse me.
Are Canonical and HR naïve when they kindly ask that the use of EFI not be restricted?
Is it not very clear that the intention is not at all to increase security (security in windows? It's a laugh) but precisely to prevent the rise of GNU / Linux?
Isn't it true that EFI has been included in Apple computers for a long time and as a consequence you can't do something as simple as running a GNU / Linux CD or USB live on a Mac?
With this measure, from the outset we will not be able to continue doing on new computers that as simple as testing distros in live mode, going with our pendrives to our friends' houses to teach them GNU / Linux without having to install it ...
Who does not see that this is a clear maneuver against GNU / Linux, is very, very naive.
Hello and welcome alliance 😀
Clearly, it is not and has never been a secret that Microsoft has less "official" or "public" agreements with hardware vendors and vendors, which is why its response of, "hardware vendors are the ones who will have control over SecureBoot 'is simply hypocrisy.
We'll see, as HP and Dell have ruled on this, I have not read the article yet but I plan to read it and post it here on the site.
Greetings and once again, WELCOME !!!, a pleasure to have you here 🙂
Yes, I don't remember correctly, Intel supports Gnu / Linux, but in the case of computers with AMD I see a big problem because at least in Intel the technology is already there and I doubt that Intel will pay attention to microsoft in that sense since yes, Intel is 100 % compatible with linux and windows or linux users will not go down or up just because the Secure Boot is Off.
At least the amds do have a big problem there.