FSF Campaigns Against Windows 8's Secure Boot
"We are concerned that Microsoft and hardware manufacturers will implement these boot restrictions in a way that will prevent users from booting anything other than Windows," wrote Matt Lee in a post on the FSF website. "In this case, a better name for the technology might be Restricted Boot, since such a requirement would be a disastrous restriction on computer users and not a security feature at all."
Lee suggests that users should keep their ability to decide whether they want to enable or disable boot restrictions and there should be a way that will allow users to install a free OS.
"Computer owners must not be required to seek external authorization to exercise their freedoms," Lee wrote. If Windows 8 will prevent users from installing a free OS, Lee believes the result may be "complicated and risky measures to circumvent the restrictions", and the " popular trend of reviving old hardware with GNU/Linux would come to an end."
It's a good idea to keep an eye on such new features, but I would think that it is rather unlikely that Microsoft will shut out other OS from its Windows 8 platform. If Microsoft was almost broken up over the integration of IE in Windows, it's fairly easy to imagine the potential antitrust effects if it were to shut out other operating systems.
There is currently no way to prevent a rootkit from loading before an OS. Since Windows is the most popular OS, most rootkits are written to target it. Since a rootkit loads before the OS, it is free to modify OS files and is able to run in such a way as to remain undetectable.
To remedy this, the new UEFI bios supports a secure certificate service. This service checks to ensure the OS boot files have not been tampered with before handing the system over to the boot loaders on the hard drive.
Because the UEFI bios is able to step in before the OS/rootkits are loaded, it can securely ensure the OS has not been tampered with.
The whole uproar is because Microsoft, as part of their logo requirements, is dictating that this feature be enabled by default on all PCs shipping with Windows 8.
Since the motherboard manufacturers are responsible for the BIOS implementation, it is up to them as to whether to allow a BIOS setting that enables/disables the secure boot service.
This is where the Linux folks and FSF take issue.
The reality is that no motherboard manufacturer in their right mind would leave out the option to disable secure boot, as this would restrict the computer to Windows 8. No previous version of Windows, no versions of Linux... nothing else could be used on that computer. The customer outcry would be deafening. There is no incentive to leave this option out of the BIOS.
I think the uproar is unwarranted for two reasons. One is that the market reality dictates that this should be a customer choice. The other reason is that if the open source movement were smart, they too would integrate secure boot into Linux, since any OS that doesn't support it is vulnerable to rootkits.
Apple does this already. It's a combination of requiring UEFI (which most PCs don't have) and Intel's TPM chip. I think.
this aint secure boot. this is no linux on this pc cuz i r ballmer boot.
if apple does this already with their pcs then they should sue microsoft for patent infringement and get it disabled/removed, in which case linux/fsf wins.
on the other hand, apple might be happy since this will make building hackintosh with a windows 8.0 pc harder. :P
I think that Linux users are tech-savvy enough to NOT buy prebuilt PCs, and on non-prebuilt there will be an option to disable this.
Keep protesting. I'll laugh just like I laughed when Linux users "demanded" Steam. They don't really need any of it, they just want to pretend that someone actually gives a $h!t about them.
The differenc is that it's to prevent the Mac OS from being installed in other non-mac computers. I can still install other OSes on mac computers.
What about laptops?
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/09/microsoft-attempt-address-windows-8-linux-worries/
I know this is trollbait and all, but I just want everyone else reading this comment thread to know the reason the FSF is protesting this is that it basically does what Apple does with mac hardware, where the bios doesn't allow for any OS except OSX (in this case, windows) to boot, and since M$ is pushing EUFI in Windows 8, and most hardware manufacturers are swapping to it, all it takes is a little illicit pocket change from M$ to get asus msi etc to just take the secure boot toggle out of their BIOSes on preinstalled windows boxes.
Every linux user now would not care the difference, we could flash the bios and do whatever we wanted, and we wouldn't get a system with Windows preinstalled. But for every Joe Shmoe computer user, this basically removes the ability to OS switch completely. And when it comes to laptops, without a unified component standard like ATX is for desktop we cant custom build laptops so we have to go through 3rd party distributors that M$ can buy out to preinstall windows 8 with secure boot disasbled and it will be a pain to reflash the bios.
I re-purpose discarded computers and laptops (mostly from DELL) for people who can't afford new PCs, but need a word processor and an internet connection. In 10 years I'll be doing it with i7's and whatever else is bleeding edge now. I am savvy enough to not buy prebuilt but I still use them.
EDIT: I'll also say that as much as I love Windows, Microsoft needs to fix the problem of malicious code running in Windows before they fix a problem that doesn't even exist.
Apple already does do this.
It crushed Psystar to death.
If Linux wants to be able to install on any hardware, how about it ponys up some cash for a change instead of thinking that free software also means free IT industry.
There is currently no way to prevent a rootkit from loading before an OS. Since Windows is the most popular OS, most rootkits are written to target it. Since a rootkit loads before the OS, it is free to modify OS files and is able to run in such a way as to remain undetectable.
To remedy this, the new UEFI bios supports a secure certificate service. This service checks to ensure the OS boot files have not been tampered with before handing the system over to the boot loaders on the hard drive.
Because the UEFI bios is able to step in before the OS/rootkits are loaded, it can securely ensure the OS has not been tampered with.
The whole uproar is because Microsoft, as part of their logo requirements, is dictating that this feature be enabled by default on all PCs shipping with Windows 8.
Since the motherboard manufacturers are responsible for the BIOS implementation, it is up to them as to whether to allow a BIOS setting that enables/disables the secure boot service.
This is where the Linux folks and FSF take issue.
The reality is that no motherboard manufacturer in their right mind would leave out the option to disable secure boot, as this would restrict the computer to Windows 8. No previous version of Windows, no versions of Linux... nothing else could be used on that computer. The customer outcry would be deafening. There is no incentive to leave this option out of the BIOS.
I think the uproar is unwarranted for two reasons. One is that the market reality dictates that this should be a customer choice. The other reason is that if the open source movement were smart, they too would integrate secure boot into Linux, since any OS that doesn't support it is vulnerable to rootkits.
So much hate for Linux... Yet most of the world's web servers alone run on some flavor of Linux. Basically, you hate the interwebz!
=P
On a more serious note, I use Linux because it's free, and because it's not bloated, and because it doesn't crash every few days. I do have a copy of Windows Server 2008 (saved from my MSDNAA days), and I still prefer running good ol' Ubuntu Server LTS instead. I prefer it over Windows server 2008, despite the fact that I'm a total Linux newb.
If that's the case, then their customer base will drop significantly, at least in the desktop sector. However, I think the one sector that will play a major role is the corporate sector. Corporations are slow to adopt a new OS, thus, if the OEMs want the option to provide Windows 8, but need to provide the older OS (Windows 7, in this case) or even Linux, they would be stupid not to include this option and let the company's IT department fiddle with it.