|
The news was posted on the Linux kernel developers mailing list and has been posted on Phoronix. Bill kernel 3.6, which is still under development, will have native support for the protocol UEFI, but you will need boot loaders with UEFI support. |
When using UEFI hardware, both the bootloader, which is responsible for booting the operating system, and the kernel must have secure boot support and specific key signing. In the case of the Linux kernel since version 3.6, this support will be native and will not require the signature of the kernel binaries, but the boot loaders must have UEFI support, as Grub 2.0 already has, as well as the keys of corresponding security.
As for the keys, some large Linux projects have already planned to obtain the same, such as Canonical, which wants to create its private key and Fedora, which has announced that it will get the keys together with Microsoft, responsible for the execution and the imposition of UEFI on hardware manufacturers.
Source: Phoronix
These 3 news are interesting
http://www.publico.es/ciencias/397934/windows-8-podria-impedir-la-instalacion-de-linux
http://www.publico.es/ciencias/397960/microsoft-confirma-que-windows-8-si-permitira-ejecutar-linux
http://www.muylinux.com/2011/09/23/microsoft-aclara-el-tema-de-uefi-nada-de-que-preocuparse/
Microsoft has backtracked and can be activated or deactivated, so it is not as fierce as they paint it, right?
Yesterday I mounted a computer with an Asrock 970 Extreme 3 board with an AMD fx 8120 and in the UEFI nothing comes from Secure Boot. What if at the end the theme of this loader is imposed, verifier before the GRUB loader? I have chosen AMD because I am fed up with Intel and its monopoly with Microsoft.
From what I have read in other sources, giving security to the BIOS or replacing it is to avoid a kind of virus that would affect the firmware of all computer devices (it even seems like a lie).
There are friends, I see that many still do not know about the subject, "in the end everyone will have permission to start, that nonsense was useless" not only is that, we will have permissions but limited, for example in Fedora this loader or verifier (shim ) of the key prior to grub will affect the proprietary controllers, if I already know that they are an m () &% but they already represent a delay, I am most happy with the free controllers so I don't worry. What I like is the good move with the kernel and possibly the solution regarding the drivers and other problems with the UEFI, In Ubuntu a wrong decision, about the UEFI Secure Boot, so no comment ...
No ... UEFI comes to replace the BIOS. That is precisely why motherboards have to come with UEFI instead of the old BIOS.
Among other things, the interface is going to be much more attractive than that of the old BIOS ... but it also comes with some grays, as seen well in this article.
Cheers! Paul.
We already know who microsoft is. A monopolist who monopolized the market. In windows 98 the Lotus SmartSuite office suite could not be installed and they had to modify the code due to a complaint from Lotus as well as the Netscape browser with the incorporation of Internet Explorer. Long live Linux !!
A small correction: UEFI is the interface (according to its acronym in English Unified Extensible Firmware Interface), Secure Boot is the mechanism (so criticized) that prevents the boot of unsigned operating systems. Cheers! Paul.
Reading the original article on Phoronix I don't see any mention of Secure Boot, what they have implemented is a protocol for the initialization of a UEFI machine; whether you have Secure Boot implemented and / or activated or not.
In my opinion this article has nothing to do with the cited source and the comments regarding Microsoft do not apply,
Remember that Secure Boot is one more feature of UEFI, an interface (not protocol) between hardware or firmware and operating systems (replaces BIOS). This that they have implemented in the kernel comes to simplify or help to boot a Linux system on UEFI machines, which for people who have them right now is somewhat complicated.
For example, if you have been following Archboot releases for a long time, there are comments and "workarounds" in the release thread regarding the installation of Arch and some bootloader on UEFI computers (for example, Syslinux does not support UEFI computers today).
I can't believe Microsoft's selfishness, but they also know that they will never be able to do more without the help of new hardware.
in the end everyone will have permission to start, that nonsense was useless
Fuck you shit $ oft. eye by eye, tooth by tooth