On Sat, 23 May 2015 09:04:55 -0700 Patrick Bartek <nemomm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 2015, Petter Adsen wrote: > > > On Fri, 22 May 2015 23:53:14 -0700 > > Patrick Bartek <nemomm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Researching a laptop purchase (within the next 6 months or so) to > > > replace my aging Desktop (1 to 8.5 years depending on which > > > parts). Going to abandoned the Big Box forever. Need to be very > > > portable in the next year or two. Two questions to begin: > > > > > > 1. Many laptops seem to only be able to turn off Secure Boot > > > through the OS, Windows 8.x, or so I've researched. However, > > > I've read some makes (Asus, Lenovo, Dell and HP) can do it > > > directly through "BIOS" without needing to boot Windows? True? > > > Any others? > > > > I don't have a laptop myself (don't like them), but every one I've > > seen so far has had a switch to disable Secure Boot in the BIOS. > > AFAIK, that switch is mandatory to adhere to the "Built For Windows > > 8" MS program, although it is only optional for the coming Windows > > 10 program. That might be something to watch out for. > > I've read about that, but right now until W10 in its final form is > release, nobody really knows for sure. Well, yes and no. We *do* know that the status has changed from "mandatory" to "optional", but whether hardware manufacturers will actually remove the ability to turn Secure Boot off remains to be seen. > > If this is going to become a real problem or not, we will just have > > to wait and see. > > > > > 2. How UEFI compatible is Debian Wheezy? What I'm running on the > > > Desktop. Or is Jessie the better choice. Or something else > > > entirely? Except Ubuntu variants (Hate it!). I don't want to run > > > in Legacy mode for future compatibility. I won't be installing a > > > desktop, just a window manager. Probably Openbox. > > > > You can find details here: > > > > https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/ch03s06.html.en#UEFI > > Yes, I read that during my initial research. > > > I believe the Canonical people have put some effort into becoming > > fully Secure Boot-compliant, but if you do not like them, then that > > is not an option. There are also others (RedHat?) but I can't > > remember who. > > That compatibility comes from the Linux manufacturer buying a > Microsoft Secure Boot key which Canonical and RH have. SUSE, too, I > think. Don't know how much that costs them. I prefer not to have > Linux under Microsoft's thumb that way. I absolutely agree. > I have no problems with turning Secure Boot off and leaving it off. > It's just that I fear that in the future one won't be able to turn > it off. And that will really throw a wrench in the Linux community. > We'll see. The Linux Foundation is also examining the possibility of obtaining a key that can be used to sign images for distributions (free of charge), and there is also work being done on signing a shim that will launch a "real" bootloader. As the Perl people lovingly remind us, there's more than one way to do it :) Petter -- "I'm ionized" "Are you sure?" "I'm positive."
pgpWNbZuGkvwx.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
