Win 10 Secure Boot

[GerardV]

Here is an article i came across: http://arstechnica.com/information-t...out-a-reality/
Should we be worried
My Toshiba is still going strong, but eventually i have to replace it

[Qqmike]

Well, ya build your own PC, you put Linux on it, and you don't put any Windows on it. That would be one solution.

[whatthefunk]

Well, ya build your own PC, you put Linux on it, and you don't put any Windows on it. That would be one solution.

Unless of course Microsoft requires all hardware vendors to include secure boot in their software.

[ronw]

I'm not worried. My next computer will have Linux, or nothing, pre-installed, just like this one. That's a second solution.

[GerardV]

Well, ya build your own PC,

A bit harder if you want a laptop.
A machine from System7 is a solution i suppose

[SteveRiley]

Unless of course Microsoft requires all hardware vendors to include secure boot in their software.

That's not what's happening. Windows 10 does not require secure boot. The change here is that OEMs will be permitted to decide on their own whether they want to allow consumers to disable secure boot. Previously, Microsoft required OEMs to provide a way to disable it.

Nevertheless, this is an alarming move. It's pathetic how these software companies want to prohibit us from fully exercising ownership of our hardware.

[Qqmike]

We would hope that somebody in the complex web of "who's the boss," that someone there would make the deals necessary to work something like what we have now, where shimx64.efi passes the tests and then hands off to grubx64.efi, both nicely and clearly placed in the /boot/efi/EFI directory.

[SteveRiley]

That's a potential "workaround." But what if I don't want any trace of Microsoft-signed files on my machine? I should have that choice, right?

[Snowhog]

I agree. If Microsoft wants to insist on PCs being hardware compliant with "their requirements", Microsoft needs to start building their own proprietary PCs like Apple does. If they don't want to do that, they should drop their 'Microsoft Certified' hardware requirements manufacturers have been 'forced' into abiding by.

[Qqmike]

SteveRiley
But what if I don't want any trace of Microsoft-signed files on my machine? I should have that choice, right?

Like totally, dude. Yeah, I do agree. You buy or build a machine, you oughta get it at the raw hardware and a minimal UEFI/BIOS, operating system-"neutral" firmware level (provided by the mobo maker). And yeah, Snowhog, Microsoft should build its own machines if it wants to play this game.

[Feathers McGraw]

This is one of those areas where the state should step in and require all EFI implementations to have the "disable secureboot" option. The EU, for all its other failings, is usually pretty good for this kind of thing and I expect they'll do something about it (...slowly).

It's very naive to expect any sector where one or two companies are dominant to self-regulate and maintain a competitive market, since that's a direct contradiction of their business objectives. It shouldn't even be up to Microsoft to play nice in the first place!

Another nice example of the "no state intervention, the private sector knows best" attitude going wrong is broadband. Pretty much every developed nation apart from the USA requires cable owners to resell access to other ISPs at a reasonable price. Here in the UK, that means that although BT owns most of the "last mile", you can get broadband from any ISP you like. The result is that you guys have a stagnant monopoly with little incentive to invest and improve, and we have healthy competition with consumer choice. It wouldn't have happened if everyone had to lay their own cable because the costs are prohibitive and the first company to lay cable in an area would capture the whole market, whereas newcomers have the same overhead but they have to convince people to switch.