

Linux users file EU complaint against Microsoft - tomkindle
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/26/us-microsoft-eu-idUSBRE92P0E120130326

======
nivla
Alright this is getting ridiculous, we aren't living in the 90s anymore and we
should be encouraging healthy competition. We now have better alternatives
like Macbooks, Chromebooks etc. I can't buy into the reason that Microsoft
issued secure boot only to undermine Linux. Infact, Microsoft requires all x86
Windows 8 machines to be able to turn off secure boot and/or add their own
keys. This also applies for their own manufactured Surface x86 tablets.

I am really looking forward to something like secure boot. Why? Imagine using
Truecrypt to encrypt your entire hard drive with 3 layers encryption, and only
to defeated by a pesky 10kb keylogging bootloader malware. So unless someone
has an alternative solution to this, I am sticking up for secure boot and the
ability to add my own keys.

------
nonamegiven
"In its 14-page complaint, Hispalinux said Windows 8 contained an "obstruction
mechanism" called UEFI Secure Boot that controls the start-up of the computer
and means users must seek keys from Microsoft to install another operating
system.

"The group said it was "a de facto technological jail for computer booting
systems ... making Microsoft's Windows platform less neutral than ever".

Wouldn't it make more sense to go after the hardware manufacturers? They're
the ones that put Win8 on the machines, they could have put something less
obstructive.

I would think manufacturers not being able to sell in Europe would have much
wider reaching results.

~~~
gizmo686
You could argue that MS is using its market position to force manufacturers to
adopt UEFI. However, I think MS is acting in a pretty non-competative way on
this one, and have a completely valid argument that UEFI is good for security.

Consider that MS has a signing service available. Using this service their are
various solutions to the UEFI problem, including distributions getting their
own signatures, and a general solution shim that would allow the user to boot
from an OS even if it is not signed in a way the UEFI recognizes as valid.

Also, UEFI secure boot does not require that users be unable to disable it or
add their own keys. (In fact, MS requires x86 computers to be able to disable
it).

UEFI secure boot does still increase the barrier for end-users to install 3rd
party OSes, however I do not see any reason to believe this is intentional,
but rather that this use case in uncommon enough that it is not what is
optimized for. Also, if you are going to install another OS on your computer,
I do not think it is unreasonable that you should have to do something in the
BIOS. Doing so in this case is actually simple if the instillation
instructions tell you how. And the 'scary' element doesn't seem any different
from the 'scary' permissions popup that you get when you need to run a program
as an administrator (or from an un-trusted source if I recall).

