Windows 8 OEM specs may block Linux booting

[marvelousprashant]

Spoiler

*blogs.msdn.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-weblogfiles/00-00-01-29-43-metablogapi/0624.Figure_2D00_5_2D002D002D00_Samsung_2D00_PC_2D00_secured_2D00_boot_2D00_setting_5F00_thumb_5F00_02016A69.jpg

The concern over whether or not the Windows 8 requirement for ‘Secure Boot’ will prevent users from installing other operating systems has been addressed by Microsoft‘s Steven Sinofsky in a blog post on the Microsoft Developers Network site.
Read full news here

 

[coderunknown]

Pre-built Windows 8 computers that want a “Windows Certified” sticker have to offer support for “Secure Boot” and enable it by default, but it remains up to the OEMs as to whether they provide an ‘off’ switch to allow users of other operating systems – including Microsoft’s own – the ability to install/boot into them.

the bold part says it all. OEM will get discount + other benefits for offering a locked secure boot.

Source: link provided in above post.

 

[Liverpool_fan]

Plus imagine the reaction of newbies when told to disable something called "secure boot" to run Linux. I don't expect positive reactions. And most people being stubborn doesn't help either.

 

[vaithy]

the bold part says it all. OEM will get discount + other benefits for offering a locked secure boot.

Source: link provided in above post.

Exactly! M$ contracted the OEM for the particular models and charging them(in their language'discount') for the actual manufacturing items,i.e say 1,00,000 factory products,.. even if the OEM acually preloaded,only 80,000 items, and leave the rest of the items for other os, DOS, etc.,they have to pay to M$ exactly 1,00,000 items, whether the remaining items are windows loaded or linux loaded, the laptop priced same level as windows, so the actual margin of profits are going to M$ for selling Linux so we are calling this 'Windows Tax'
When I went for my laptop to the local HP reseller, he reietrated the same point, when I requested the Linux loaded laptop, but to pay same charge as windows laptop..
with his tonque twisted like a lapdog you've already watched Ballmer's famous laugh," Linux is not free; you have to pay for it..."
I am not hating if Ballmer get billion by selling windows.. but he and his OEM cronies are feeding on the blood of million FOSS developers, who have sweated to million of codes to produce free software try to bring before masses.. that is what unpardonable...

Plus imagine the reaction of newbies when told to disable something called "secure boot" to run Linux. I don't expect positive reactions. And most people being stubborn doesn't help either.

Four years ago I was a fedora uses, when I try to teach linux with it to my friends, they were less enthusiastic , to manually installing all the codecs through terminal etc., then i happened to get PCLINUX then ubuntu CDS (total 10 cds) First they refuse to install it but they try live cds.. then the landscape changed now they are connverted to PC LINUX and ubuntu (they still need windows so it is dual booting)
If I am again to tell them they should try modify something called UEFI like BIOS, they will certainly not pleased...
For twenty years Linux and FOSS movement thwarted all the attempts by M$ FUD campaign and stood strong..there are some good open source souls still living in the locked cellars of redmond which is called port25, they may give some idea to Ballmer & Co, "instead of destroying linux, let us make some money" .
the thought of money can change BALLMER's mad schemes,but concentrated on the development of windows-8...Perhaps Ballmer already throwing his towel on the mat, realising windows -8 is going to be his 'windows ME' or VISTA. so he is now actively preparing for Windows-8 services Pack (a la Windows-9).. If any shareholder asking him, he can smoothed them 'what can I do" the linux growd conspired against me !

 

[socrates]

Microsoft, Red Hat spar over secure boot-loading tech. Microsoft, Red Hat spar over secure boot-loading tech - Computerworld

 

[Liverpool_fan]

mjg59 | UEFI secure booting (part 2)

 

[Garbage]

From mjg59 | Supporting UEFI secure boot on Linux: the details

Supporting UEFI secure boot on Linux: the details

An obvious question is why Linux doesn't support UEFI secure booting. Let's ignore the issues of key distribution and the GPL and all of those things, and instead just focus on what would be required. There's two components - the signed binary and the authenticated variables.

The UEFI 2.3.1 spec describes the modification to the binary format required to produce a signed binary. It's not especially difficult - you add an extra entry to the image directory, generate a hash of the entire binary other than the checksum, the certificate directory entry and the signatures themselves, encrypt that hash with your key and embed the encrypted hash in the binary. The problem has been that there was a disagreement between Microsoft and Intel over whether this signature was supposed to include the PKCS header or not, and until earlier this week the only widely available developer firmware (Intel's) was incompatible with the only widely available signed OS (Microsoft's). There's further hilarity in that the specification lists six supported hash algorithms, but the implementations will only accept two. So pretty normal, really. Developing towards a poorly defined target is a pain. Now that there's more clarity we'll probably have a signing tool before too long.

Authenticated variables are the other part of the puzzle. If a variable requires authentication, the operating system's attempt to write it will fail unless the new data is appropriately signed. The key databases (white and blacklists) are examples of authenticated variables. The signing actually takes place in userspace, and the handoff between the kernel and firmware is identical for both this case and the unauthenticated case. The only problem in Linux's support here is that our EFI variable support was written to a pre-1.0 version of the EFI specification which stated that variables had a maximum size of 1024 bytes, and this limitation ended up exposed to userspace. So all we really need to do there is add a new interface to let arbitrary sized variables be written.

Summary: We don't really support secure boot right now, but that's ok because you can't buy any hardware that supports it yet. Adding support is probably about a week's worth of effort at most.

 

[Prime_Coder]

Will Windows 8 block Linux installs?

If it is, then it will be a very bad thing.

So, finally Microsoft Denies Locking out Linux Stories

There have been rumors that the secure boot of MS Windows 8 would replace BIOS with UEFI, thereby locking out Linux. This would even lock out the earlier linux-logoWindows versions from new computers. This rumor was disturbing for people who wanted both Windows and Linux on their systems. And since it wouldn’t allow other Windows versions, you couldn’t install other operating systems on the same computer. A real bummer indeed.

 

[coderunknown]

yup, a real bummer. and when laptops are out with locked boot-loader, simply blame the manufacturers. sweet

 

[doomgiver]

of course, M$ will deny.... you dont plead guilty anyway.

 

[Krow]

Windows 8 will take time to grow on me. Anyway, I'll jailbreak the bootloader for linux installs.