Stand up for your freedom to install free software!

Source: Free Software Foundation
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement

 

Couldn't Linux work with Secure Boot using LILO, etc.?

 

Is this still going? Good God, now we've reached petition status. I hate to break it to them, but I can install free and open source software on a Windows machine too Look, before the Linux police show up and start the "fanboy" nonsense up again, it has not been shown whether or not this SecureBoot is going to kill anything. Hell, even the article itself makes it clear it that the FSF isn't sure. So can we put down the torches and pitchforks, have a nice, steaming hot cup of STFU, and wait a bit to see what happens?

 

Sounds like a good initiative. Better to be proactive than this whole let's trust you know who. They obviously won't do anything monopolistic.

 

Isn't it just GRUB that won't work? I believe there's a bootloader that does.

Anyways, there will likely be a hardware switch. And as to whether or not it's "secure boot" or "Restricted Boot" it's pretty much both - that's the point.

While I still think users should have the choice to install Linux we really haven't seen Secure Boot in action and have no idea how it will work.

 

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uefi

 

It isn't that Linux won't work, as it will and does, but whether OEM PCs and motherboard manufacturers will design the hardware so people can change their OS.

For instance, I bought a Dell laptop the other week, and the first thing I did was remove Windows and install Linux. There is a risk that the hardware won't let the end-user to re-set the secure boot in the future. After all, Linux only has less than 1% market share, so will manufacturers care?

Also from wikepedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uefi

Edit: And from Red Hat Mobile Developer (Mathew Garrett)

http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/5552.html

 

If it's digitally signed it'll run. That's all secure-boot restricts. It's not "Windows only" it's "Signed only." Of course the signatures have to be there.

 

If it's digitally signed it kinda destroys (or corrupts) the point of an open license. (See the second article to which I linked in the previous post)

 

That is what Allan Greenspan said when he suggested deregulation.
And we all watch what happens.

 

We've already had one thread shut down, let's not go for two. Besides, it's completely irrelevant. The penguins don't have to worry about their icebergs melting yet, nobody knows what hardware makers will do. Though, I must say that when issues still exist with Linux, like wireless and graphics drivers, even in 2011, there might be a problem.

Again though, nobody knows yet, so nobody is getting the "shaft", and these petitions remain pointless, along with arguing over what SecureBoot will or won't do.

 

uefi blues for Linux users begin:

http://benjaminkerensa.com/2011/10/23/uefi-headaches-begin-linux/

My friend recently got an HP s5-1110 with Win 7 installed. UEFI has prevented the installation of GRUB on this machine. I could find no way in the BIOS to disable the feature and so far, as I work my way up the HP tech support ladder, I have found no HP techs who have a clue what I am talking about.

If this keeps up, its curtains down for Linux for most sadly. (

 

Your participation in this discussion seems to contradicts your words, though.

 

Um? What? I have no clue what you're trying to say here, but it's beyond me how Alan Greenspan is even remotely related to the issue being discussed. This is a discussion about Secure Boot and Linux. Stick to the relevant discussion.

 

The wait and watch attitude is being recommended by vested interests. Later, we'll be presented with a fait accompli and asked whether we were sleeping.

 

Any more light on this?

 

How long does this take?