Microsoft may lock out other OSes with Windows 10

[Mickey]

Is this true with Linux, Fedora ?  I though Secure Boot was overcome as 
a problem.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/03/23/microsoft-may-lock-out-other-oses-wit...

[Dave Ihnat]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 05:30:41PM -0400, Mickey wrote:
> Is this true with Linux, Fedora ?  I though Secure Boot was overcome
> as a problem.

I've been watching this, and the concern are threefold.

First, Microsoft previously had required that manufacturers make
SecureBoot and UEFI optional; indications from their statements so far is
that now they're leaving that up to the manufacturer.  Speculation is that
some will take that as the opportunity to bake both into new firmware.

Secondly, Microsoft *has* stated that any machines that are to run Win10
*must* run SecureBoot.

The final issue is that to date, it's been required to allow users to
manage the keys used for SecureBoot, adding their own as they deem fit.
Currently, it's unclear if that requirement will stand.

I wouldn't get too stressed just yet--it's early days, and M$ is being (as
usual) unclear on what its final decisions will be when they finally
release Win10.  Of course, I expect the worst, but I'm a professional
pessimist.

There's a good reason for that--beyond decades of experience.
If you're an optimist, you're always disappointed.  If you're a pessimist,
you're rarely disappointed, and sometimes pleasantly surprised.

Cheers,
--
    Dave Ihnat
    [e-mail]

[Chris Murphy]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Dave Ihnat  wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 05:30:41PM -0400, Mickey wrote:
> > Is this true with Linux, Fedora ?  I though Secure Boot was overcome
> > as a problem.
>
> I've been watching this, and the concern are threefold.
>
> First, Microsoft previously had required that manufacturers make
> SecureBoot and UEFI optional;

For pre-loaded systems, UEFI is mandatory, as is SecureBoot enabled by
default, as is a user accessible toggle to disable it.
> The final issue is that to date, it's been required to allow users to
> manage the keys used for SecureBoot, adding their own as they deem fit.
> Currently, it's unclear if that requirement will stand.

So far that appears to be unchanged.

A bit of a concern is this bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170245

It's possible for a user to have a Windows 10 system, be unable to
disable Secure Boot, unable to boot Windows (because of this bug) from
the GRUB menu, and have a system that doesn't provide access to
firmware setup or one-time boot menu via an F key at startup time. So
they'll have to learn how to enable firmware setup access from
Windows, and reboot, at which point now the user must learn how to
change the boot order using efibootmgr via CLI since there isn't a GUI
boot manager.

Kinda, ick. But shortly after Windows 10 is released, we'll see Fedora
23 which should have the bug fixed at the latest.

[Pete Travis]

On 03/27/2015 03:30 PM, Mickey wrote:
> Is this true with Linux, Fedora ?  I though Secure Boot was overcome as a problem.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/03/23/microsoft-may-lock-out-other-oses-wit...

I'm not worried about this at all.  It just says that Microsoft *might
not require* the option to allow users to disable.  I don't think any
OEMs are going to love the marketing benefits of mandatory SecureBoot
more than they like the business of their large customers that don't
want it for $reasons, and they aren't going to be producing different
hardware for retail and OEM because it just doesn't make business sense
to do that.  Also, we have shim.

[Ian Malone]

On 27 March 2015 at 23:26, Pete Travis  wrote:
> On 03/27/2015 03:30 PM, Mickey wrote:
> > Is this true with Linux, Fedora ?  I though Secure Boot was overcome as a
> > problem.
> >
> > http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/03/23/microsoft-may-lock-out-other-oses-wit...
>
> I'm not worried about this at all.  It just says that Microsoft *might not
> require* the option to allow users to disable.  I don't think any OEMs are
> going to love the marketing benefits of mandatory SecureBoot more than they
> like the business of their large customers that don't want it for $reasons,
> and they aren't going to be producing different hardware for retail and OEM
> because it just doesn't make business sense to do that.  Also, we have shim.

Differential pricing, if a menu option can be disabled it can be monetized.

[Ian Malone]

On 28 March 2015 at 11:33, Ian Malone  wrote:
> Differential pricing, if a menu option can be disabled it can be monetized.

(Or at least the sales people will think so.)