Glyn Moody asks:
http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/ope...ware/index.htm
http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/ope...ware/index.htm
In December 2011, Microsoft published a document entitled "Windows Hardware Certification Requirements" for client and server systems. As the introduction explains:
This release to web (RTW) document contains the Windows Hardware Certification requirements for Windows 8 Certified Systems. These requirements are Microsoft’s guidelines for designing systems which successfully meet Windows performance, quality, and feature criteria, to assure the optimum Windows 8 computing experience. Successfully following this guidance will allow a partner to receive certification for their system.
On page 116 of this document, there are some details about the circumstances under which Secure Boot can be disabled:
MANDATORY: Enable/Disable Secure Boot. On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup. A physically present user must be allowed to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup without possession of Pkpriv. Programmatic disabling of Secure Boot either during Boot Services or after exiting EFI Boot Services MUST NOT be possible. Disabling Secure MUST NOT be possible on ARM systems.
This confirms that it is indeed possible to disable Secure Boot - but only on non-ARM systems (i.e. traditional PCs.) In other words, it would appear that Microsoft is still locking out GNU/Linux from installation on ARM-based Windows 8 machines.
So this leaves me confused. The document was published some time after Microsoft's post where it states "Microsoft does not mandate or control the settings on PC firmware that control or enable secured boot from any operating system other than Windows", and yet it seems to contradict it. So what's going here? Was Microsoft's blog statement only about non-ARM systems, as the new documentation suggests? And if so, why the discrimination? And finally, is ARM really happy to see Microsoft apparently locking out GNU/Linux from its systems in this way? Let's hope Microsoft can clarify this situation as it did on the previous occasion.
This release to web (RTW) document contains the Windows Hardware Certification requirements for Windows 8 Certified Systems. These requirements are Microsoft’s guidelines for designing systems which successfully meet Windows performance, quality, and feature criteria, to assure the optimum Windows 8 computing experience. Successfully following this guidance will allow a partner to receive certification for their system.
On page 116 of this document, there are some details about the circumstances under which Secure Boot can be disabled:
MANDATORY: Enable/Disable Secure Boot. On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup. A physically present user must be allowed to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup without possession of Pkpriv. Programmatic disabling of Secure Boot either during Boot Services or after exiting EFI Boot Services MUST NOT be possible. Disabling Secure MUST NOT be possible on ARM systems.
This confirms that it is indeed possible to disable Secure Boot - but only on non-ARM systems (i.e. traditional PCs.) In other words, it would appear that Microsoft is still locking out GNU/Linux from installation on ARM-based Windows 8 machines.
So this leaves me confused. The document was published some time after Microsoft's post where it states "Microsoft does not mandate or control the settings on PC firmware that control or enable secured boot from any operating system other than Windows", and yet it seems to contradict it. So what's going here? Was Microsoft's blog statement only about non-ARM systems, as the new documentation suggests? And if so, why the discrimination? And finally, is ARM really happy to see Microsoft apparently locking out GNU/Linux from its systems in this way? Let's hope Microsoft can clarify this situation as it did on the previous occasion.
ly believe that the future of all computing hardware will be ARM and in the not too distant future. Nowadays it is not about getting rid of mercury we now must all genuflect at the all seeing god of green/low power/next available white guilt fetish.
Comment