
Microsoft Finds Another Excuse to Block GNU/Linux - darkduck
http://techrights.org/2011/09/22/tricks-with-boot-process/
======
JonnieCache
This has been shown to be bullshit already:

[http://www.winrumors.com/microsoft-clears-up-linux-
confusion...](http://www.winrumors.com/microsoft-clears-up-linux-confusion-
over-windows-8-secure-boot-feature/)

* UEFI allows firmware to implement a security policy

* Secured boot is a UEFI protocol not a Windows 8 feature

* UEFI secured boot is part of Windows 8 secured boot architecture

* If desired, Windows 8 utilizes secured boot to ensure that the pre-OS environment is secure

* Secured boot doesn’t “lock out” operating system loaders, but is is a policy that allows firmware to validate authenticity of components

* OEMs have the ability to customize their firmware to meet the needs of their customers by customizing the level of certificate and policy management on their platform

* Microsoft does not mandate or control the settings on PC firmware that control or enable secured boot from any operating system other than Windows

~~~
phaylon
From what I understand:

* If you want "Windows Certified" approval for your hardware, you have to provide and activate this by default.

* If it's active, it won't allow uncertified systems (read: Linux) to run without deactivating the option in the BIOS, which doesn't have to be provided.

* If it's inactive, it won't run Windows.

Since this isn't the first time Microsoft had troubles being fair to their
competition, I'd see this less as "bullshit," and more as "people caught on
more early this time." With Microsoft's past, why are you surprised people are
more careful with its suggestions?

~~~
cabirum
From the ms blog post:

 _Steven Sinofsky 22 Sep 2011 4:10 PM #_

@Jose Pedro Of course Windows is usable without secure boot -- just like the
post stated

~~~
phaylon
You're right on that point, sorry I missed that.

------
tzs
Why not submit a link to one of the legitimate sites covering this (some even
covering it accurately!), instead of a link to a discredited conspiracy theory
site?

