Secure Boot is a security measure that prevents malware from interfering with the boot process, but it can also prevent unsigned operating systems from booting on the same hardware. While Microsoft’s “Designed for Windows 8” guidelines required manufacturers to permit users to disable the Secure Boot option, the upcoming Windows 10 release will not have this rule in effect. At WinHEC it has been revealed that Windows 10 guidelines leave it up to the OEM to decide if they will allow users to disable UEFI Secure Boot in the system setup, and making this optional presents an interesting question about compatibility with other operating systems. OEM’s will be required to ship computers with Secure Boot enabled to comply with “Designed for…” rules, and while they could then choose to provide the option to disable it (currently the required standard), preventing user installation of other OS software could be seen as a way to streamline support by eliminating variables.
Why does this matter if most people who purchase a Windows 10 computer will run Windows 10 on it? This could be an issue for someone who wished to either replace that Windows 10 installation with another OS, or simply dual-boot with an OS that didn’t support the Secure Boot feature (which could be a build of Linux or even an older version of Windows). Requiring OS files to contain digital signatures effectively locks out other operating systems without special workarounds or keys, and although open-source operating systems represent a small segment of the market thanks to the way computer hardware is sold to most people, it is concerning to think future hardware could cause a loss of the freedom of choice we have always had with operating systems.
Microsoft enjoys market dominance with Windows thanks to its licensing model (giving it a monopoly on pre-built PC systems that don’t have an Apple or Chrome logo on them), but reportedly began considering possibilities “to assert its intellectual property against Linux or any other open-source software” a decade ago, and this has reached farther than they probably imagined with the adoption of Android (from which Microsoft makes money on every device sold). Is this Secure Boot move nefarious, and does Microsoft consider Linux to be a potential threat to the their desktop market share? It could be that Microsoft would simply like to claim that Windows 10 is the safest version of Windows yet, and that isn’t a bad thing for consumers. Unless they want to easily use another OS on the hardware they purchased, that is.
Whatever the motivation, M$
Whatever the motivation, M$ is still in good need of being broken up by the antitrust authorities, and the EU gets OS choice for its PC/laptops, so why not the US. For sure M$’s ability to control the secure boot keys, should dictate some government action, and consumer protections. M$ should have to turn the key generating for secure boot over to a third party signing organization, but really M$ should have been stopped from bundling its OS with any third party PC/Laptop OEM hardware, and owners of the PC/Laptop hardware should be the ones to choose their own OSs. Not purchasing 10, or any PC/Laptops with 10 is the consumers only option currently, there are still plenty of PC/laptop SKUs in the supply pipeline for users to avoid 10 for at least another several years. No one should purchase any locked down hardware with a CPU/SOC on it, including phones, the consumer deserves OS choice, and freedom from walled OS/ecosystems for their hardware. There needs to be more Independent PC/Laptop Hardware makers producing Linux based systems, and hopefully the Steam machines will create a better economy of scale for hardware not chained to M$’s OS, and ecosystem. Windows 7 will be the last of the M$ product for me, OS wise, there are plenty of Linux distros out there, in addition to Steam OS. Just let M$ paint itself into a corner and slowly evaporate.
How is MS a monopoly? There
How is MS a monopoly? There are choices. MS is so far behind on the most popular computing devices anyway. “There needs to be more Independent PC/Laptop Hardware makers producing Linux based systems…” Are you saying MS should prop up these independents hardware makers?
M$ holds around an 89% market
M$ holds around an 89% market share of the PC/laptop OS market. M$ is using this horizontally wide share of the third party OEM Laptop/PC market to force a closed vertical market control over the third party PC/Laptop hardware and OS market and OS software ecosystem, and its secure boot, and bundling of OS/pre-installed OS represents a substantial vertical control over the independent third party PC/laptop OEMs.
Having a horizontally wide(89%) monopoly is not necessarily illegal, using that Monopoly to force the independent third party OEM laptop/PC companies into a vertically controlled M$ OS ecosystem, buy the bundling of its OS/pre-installed OS in attempt at vertical top to bottom control over the third party OEM PC/Laptop Hardware market using its OS monopoly is an illegal monopolistic tactic! Especially the Bundling of the M$ OS on the third party OEM laptop/PC hardware, and doubly so trying to create a UEFI/BIOS Key Signing creation/issuing authority under control of the largest monopoly interest(OS, OS software ecosystem) in the independent third party OEM PC/laptop hardware market.
The Pre-Installed windows OS on independent Third party OEM PC/Laptop hardware must be stopped, The UEFI secure boot key signing and issuing authority must be placed under control of a non-monopoly OS controlled, third party impartial authority. The entire UEFI/BIOS subsystem must be made OS neutral, as well as the Secure Boot IP, it can not be under direct control of any one maker of OS/s. PC/Laptops as well as mobile devices should not be wedded for life to any OS/OS software ecosystem, and the owner of the hardware is the one who should have complete OS choice, not the OEM, and certainly not an OS monopoly.
M$ exercising any control, or propping up of any third party PC/Laptop maker is just an attempt at an illegal/monopolistic vertical control and should be stopped, no more third party PC/Laptop hardware made specifically for any OS, the PC/Laptop hardware should be made to run as many different OSs as possible, with the user acquiring the OS of choice and installing it on their new hardware, the OEMs should be required to supply the hardware drivers for at least 3 different OSs(Proprietary, and open source). In the EU PC/laptop customers can choose their OS of choice, so why not in the US!
I’m sorry, but this wasn’t an
I’m sorry, but this wasn’t an issue with Windows 8 and won’t be with Windows 10. Its even clearly stated in the slide:
Seriously, please stop with the fear mongering bullshit.
Right. With Windows 8 it was
Right. With Windows 8 it was a requirement to offer a legacy boot mode that bypassed Secure Boot. With 10 it will be up to the OEM. As in, it won’t be a requirement. If an OEM isn’t required to offer a legacy mode, they probably won’t. We’re talking about a commodity market with preconfigured Windows PCs at this point, where CMOS setup is as limited as it can possibly be.
True, but again, that’s
True, but again, that’s ultimately the OEMs decision. Could this be bad? Absolutely. My major gripe with this is how its being handled by tech news outlets with click-bait titles and questionable reporting (not saying you’re guilty).
As far as I know, the three biggest Linux distros (SuSE, Fedora/Red Hat, Ubuntu) are all compatible with UEFI secure boot, so this is only going to affect the fringe Linux user who, I bet, isn’t running a machine purchased by an OEM.
And like we’ve learned time
And like we’ve learned time and time again, most recently by Lenovo’s bloat fiasco, OEMs that make mistakes will act very quickly to correct anything that may harm the brand. It’s up to consumers to make the choice as to whether something like this is acceptable or not.
Much ado about nothing.
Much ado about nothing.
Maybe those non-compatible
Maybe those non-compatible O.S. can be updated? Seems likely that the reduction of malware vulnerability is the real goal and not some nefarious attempt to lock out fringe O.S. (“This move could potentially gain us 3/10,000ths of a percent of market share! Muhahaha!”)
It’s Windows 10, It’s Windows
It’s Windows 10, It’s Windows 10
The New OS with the Vendor lockin
They’ll slip the OEMs some Benjamins
You’ll be then be chained to a closed ecosystem
It’s all about plausible deniability
They’ll say that the OEMs will have a choice,
but in truth the fix was in!
Those brown envolopes to the OEMs
filled to the gills with those Benjamins!
I like your style 🙂
I like your style 🙂
Edit: You’ll be then be
Edit: You’ll be then be chained to a closed ecosystem
To: You’ll then be chained to a closed ecosystem
Damn them Coronas are so good, so early in the morning, and everything rimes when you are drunk, I’m on my 5th pint!
If OEMs are locking out the
If OEMs are locking out the option to disable Secure Boot (and/or add your own keys to the keychain) then you need to yell at the OEM, not Microsoft.
Plus self-builds will continue to work just fine.
It’s all about plausible
It’s all about plausible deniability for your handlers, sure blame it on the OEM, here OEM, here’s a little green persuasion in a brown envelope from the big OS monopoly, wink, wink, just tell your customers(victims) it’s for security, just keep repeating the lie, repeating the lie, repeating the lie…
Bleh, im sure major distros
Bleh, im sure major distros will be allowed to make EFI bootable distros for this new UEFI.
Sure we’ll let the big OS
Sure we’ll let the big OS monopoly, have control over the Third party OEM laptop, and PC, hardware and the BIOS/UEFI security keys, and the signing authority for all the secure boot ecosystem. What kind of skullduggery could happen by letting the big OS monopoly control the vertical and horizontal closed OS ecosystem welded to third party independent PC/laptop OEMs! For sure the US justice department antitrust division in sleeping on the job, and we’ll just hand the Big OS monopoly the authority to lock out the competition from the third party laptop/PC OEM hardware! That the Big OS Monopoly is allowed to slither its way into a vertical control of the independent PC/laptop OEMs! So much for there being any sort of independent third party PC/Laptop OEMs, they’ll be just de facto divisions of the Big OS Monopoly, welcome to the new gilded age! And a little over 104 years since the Standard OIL trust was broken up, so much for progress!
First, M$, as near-monopoly
First, M$, as near-monopoly OS vendor, is under scrutiny for any anticompetitive action. Therefore, if they do not wish to face wrath of EU and US anti-monopoly office, they should be reasonable and give the signature to anyone trustworthy (though it could rule out obscure distros)
And I believe they actually will not mind, because …
Second, given Linux market share on consumer PCs, or rather lack thereof, they probably do not care if there is additional 15 Linux OSes installed in the world. So they would rather please the authorities.
They don’t have a
They don’t have a near-monopoly on the popular computing devices. There is choice.
This is not about the mobile
This is not about the mobile devices market, this is about the PC/laptop market, and M$ holds around an 89% share of the PC/Laptop OS market. M$ holds a sizable monopoly in the PC/Laptop OS market, and M$ is using a broad horizontal(89%) control of the PC/Laptop OS market to force an illegal vertical control over the independent third party OEM PC/laptop market. The illegal forcing on the third party independent laptop/PC OEMs to bundle/pre-install the M$ windows OS on their PC/Laptop hardware, and the control M$ exerts over the UEFI secure boot key signing/issuing authority represents the vertical control aspect, and it’s this attempt at controlling the independent third party OEMs vertically, via M$’s OS/OS ecosystem, that should be razing the antitrust flags at the US Justice Department’s antitrust division!
sigh not this again.
1.
sigh not this again.
1. Microsoft is not a monopoly
2. but MS is not a monopoly on the barest of principles just like you really have a choice with cable providers in your township
3. the precedence is there with some of apple machines to not allow other OS- though to be honest unless you have a specific need apple machines are too weak for most people’s needs
4.if this is approved by MS (trust me they are watching to see if there is screaming) and a challenge case in court is passed in their favor then anyone who wants to run linux or another older win os will need another machine