Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Sure, but they wouldn't have to sell it as an operating system just to remove the artificial restrictions. They could still support only their machines, and just not encrypt the binaries and all that nonsense.

But I'm not saying they should, as I said, I don't really care. I'm just saying that just because they don't want to support other machines, that doesn't mean they have to purposely block them.

I mean, Asus doesn't support Linux on their motherboards either, but they don't have BIOS checks verifying that the OS is supported and refusing to boot if it isn't; they just tell you "you're on your own".




> they don't have BIOS checks verifying that the OS is supported and refusing to boot if it isn't

In fact the machines they're selling now almost certainly do have precisely this. It's called 'secure boot', and caused a lot of controversy. The major Linux distributions work because they've managed to get themselves signed with the appropriate key so the BIOS accepts them, but if you want to put a more niche distribution on there, you probably have to disable that check in the BIOS.


No, Secure Boot doesn't check if the OS is supported, it just checks if it's digitally signed, and that the signature is valid.

And you don't even have to disable the check if you want to use an unsigned distribution: most (all?) implementations allow the user to load her/his own public key to verify the signature against.

While we should worry about its impact - particularly in certain implementations - it's really not even close.




Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: