On 23 September 2011 16:20, James Morrissey <morrissey.jam...@gmail.com>wrote:
> This appeared on the OMGUbuntu site earlier today: > > > http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/09/microsoft-attempt-address-windows-8-linux-worries/ > > james. > > On 23 September 2011 16:05, gazz <pmg...@gmx.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 00:06 +0100, Alan Bell wrote: >> > On 21/09/11 23:29, Bea Groves wrote: >> > > Just read the following. Comments? >> > > >> > yeah, it is potentially very nasty. >> > To be Windows 8 certified computers will have to be able to do this >> > secure boot thing. Most will include an option to turn it off, exactly >> > like the google chromebooks do, they have a switch to turn off the code >> > signing requirement so you can run unsigned operating systems. The OLPC >> > also has this exact same feature, but you can get a dev key and turn it >> off. >> > The problem is that some manufacturers might start not bothering to >> > include an off switch. So that would creep in as a set of machines >> > (probably quite mainstream high volume ones) that won't run anything but >> > the pre-installed Windows 8 or above. >> > The big problem is that Windows 9 might *require* secure boot to run. >> > This means it won't run on older machines (driving hardware sales, the >> > industry likes that) and means that more manufacturers will fail to >> > include an off switch for the secure boot. If the market doesn't punish >> > them by people avoiding these pre-bricked computers then they will keep >> > doing it. Microsoft will carefully not require OEMs to fail to include >> > an off switch, because that would be anti-competitive. Virtualbox and >> > VMware and so on can include the public keys and provide a secure boot >> > environment, or run unsigned code for developing drivers and running >> > Linux, but you won't be running Linux on the hardware, only virtualised. >> > It is kind of like the current trend for using up 4 primary partitions >> > and not creating extended partitions to make dual booting harder, but >> > this one you potentially can't get round. I can see a time when you have >> > to get a laptop chipped to run Linux like you would a DVD player to do >> > multi region. >> > >> > Alan. >> > >> > -- >> > Libertus Solutions http://libertus.co.uk >> > >> > >> Yes, agree this is what is likely to happen. It would effectively >> confine Linux back to a small, techie ghetto - and that's assuming that >> it will still be possible to buy motherboards without the keys or with >> an 'off' switch. >> >> When I'm talking to voluntary sector orgs they frequently say to me that >> Microsoft Windows is 'part of the computer' and if you change the OS it >> won't work properly any more. This could make that current misconception >> actually true! >> >> What's Canonical's view on this? It seems tempting to team up with a >> producer such as Aleutia to ensure that unlocked PCs are still out there >> - and with an 'eco' selling point. >> >> Paula >> >> >> -- >> ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk >> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/ >> > > > > -- > Dr. James Morrissey > Senior Research Officer > Refugee Studies Centre > Department of International Development > University of Oxford > > > It seems to me that Secure Boot, in principal, is a Good Thing and that all operating systems should offer it. Its all about how it is implemented and the provision of an opt-out where needed. >From what I have read it would be a good thing if Ubuntu came with Secure Boot. So my question is - is this possible? Is there anything to stop Ubuntu and other main stream distros providing it? Tony
-- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
