Re: [luv-main] Microsoft requires Windows 8 logo systems to not bootunsigned OS's
Daniel Pittman <daniel@rimspace.net> wrote:
More so, even, if Microsoft are not responsible for the restriction – if they specify that their key, or the OEM key, need to be present to run Windows, but do not restrict other keys being included.
...and I suspect that the vendors, also, will not be on the hook here: there are plenty of other hardware vendors, and their choice not to support Linux will not be substantially different to their choice not to support ARM operating systems: a business decision, allowing their competition to "take" that market share.
I'd be worried if most vendors were to take that option, however. In general, consumer systems are becoming increasingly locked-down (phones, tablets, now laptops and desktops too). Obviously, the freedom to run whatever kernel you want, including one compiled by you, is fundamental to Linux usage and development, hence it is vital to protect.
Personally, I would be finding a tame SuperMicro vendor in the region, who are extremely unlikely to stop selling Linux compatible systems, what with their business market using it and all.
We do need vendors who are committed to Linux, in addition to pursuing whatever can be gained through competition law. To play my part, I always choose hardware whenever I can for which the vendor claims Linux support (after doing the proper checking to ensure that it really is likely to work reliably). For example, my desktop machine is a workstation product certified to run Red Hat. I'm actually running Debian on it, but at least it is hardware that could be bought with Linux pre-installed. I think the people who are more likely to be affected by Microsoft's strategy, in the short term, are those running Windows who want to switch to Linux on their existing hardware, as well as Linux users who buy Windows machines for the purpose of installing Linux. Laptops would be particularly problematic.
On 22/09/2011 11:59 PM, "Richard Stallman" <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
The FSF will do what it can. Please do organize people in Australia to sue about this.
-- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/
The richard stallman has spoken. Would luv server be able to hold a mailing list to prepare? Ill do what research i can over holidays, including calls to ACCC (Ive already emailed them), but i cant do much in the way of action due to my age, unfortuantly. Afaik we cant sue unless its actually happening, not based on future prepositions. As far as...
The FSF will do what it can. Goes, its up to speculation. Regards, Luke Martinez On 22/09/2011 12:37 PM, "Jason White" <jason@jasonjgw.net> wrote: Daniel Pittman <daniel@rimspace.net> wrote:
More so, even, if Microsoft are not responsible for the restriction – if they specify that their key, or the OEM key, need to be present to run Windows, but do not restrict other keys being included.
...and I suspect that the vendors, also, will not be on the hook here: there are plenty of other hardware vendors, and their choice not to support Linux will not be substantially different to their choice not to support ARM operating systems: a business decision, allowing their competition to "take" that market share.
I'd be worried if most vendors were to take that option, however. In general, consumer systems are becoming increasingly locked-down (phones, tablets, now laptops and desktops too). Obviously, the freedom to run whatever kernel you want, including one compiled by you, is fundamental to Linux usage and development, hence it is vital to protect.
Personally, I would be finding a tame SuperMicro vendor in the region, who are extremely unlikely to stop selling Linux compatible systems, what with their business market using it and all.
We do need vendors who are committed to Linux, in addition to pursuing whatever can be gained through competition law.
To play my part, I always choose hardware whenever I can for which the vendor claims Linux support (after doing the proper checking to ensure that it really is likely to work reliably). For example, my desktop machine is a workstation product certified to run Red Hat. I'm actually running Debian on it, but at least it is hardware that could be bought with Linux pre-installed.
I think the people who are more likely to be affected by Microsoft's strategy, in the short term, are those running Windows who want to switch to Linux on their existing hardware, as well as Linux users who buy Windows machines for the purpose of installing Linux. Laptops would be particularly problematic.
_______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list luv-main@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
Luke Martinez <me@luke.asia> wrote:
Afaik we cant sue unless its actually happening, not based on future prepositions.
Correct - no legal action can be taken, as far as I am aware, until vendors start excluding competing operating systems with their code signing practices. As an aside, how strong is the security argument for so-called "secure" booting? Boot sector viruses come to mind, but I haven't heard any mention of those for a very long time. Based on my reading, most root exploits don't involve modifying operating system code at all, and requiring a signed operating system in memory won't address application vulnerabilities, macro viruses, etc., which seem to be the largest threats. Thus I'm not persuaded that the security argument is particularly strong, but I might be mistaken. I can think of installation scenarios such as high-security environments where assurance is needed that the code supplied is identical to the code being run, but most of us aren't in those scenarios.
participants (2)
-
Jason White -
Luke Martinez