dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
38

GILXA1226
MVM
join:2000-12-29
Dayton, OH

GILXA1226 to Woody79_00

MVM

to Woody79_00

Re: Complaint Against MS 'Secure Boot' Filed By EU Linux Group

said by Woody79_00:

Its important to understand, folks like us that make up this forum are the minority....80% of the population probably doesn't even know how to get into the BIOS, let alone understand or change UEFI Secure Boot...they will be intimidated and not mess with it.

And rightfully or wrongly so, those 80% wouldn't/couldn't care less whether they can install Linux/*BSD/*nix on there computer.

Again, I will ask where the complaint against Apple is.

rexbinary
MOD King
Premium Member
join:2005-01-26
Plano, TX
·Frontier FiberOp..

rexbinary

Premium Member

said by GILXA1226:

Again, I will ask where the complaint against Apple is.

Apple supports loading other operating systems onto their Macintoshes, and even offers a free tool to assist.

»www.apple.com/support/bootcamp/
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

dave

Premium Member

All that bootcamp stuff is much easier than setting the 'secure boot' switch off in the BIOS, which is alleged to be beyond the capability of most Linux users.

GILXA1226
MVM
join:2000-12-29
Dayton, OH

GILXA1226 to rexbinary

MVM

to rexbinary
said by rexbinary:

said by GILXA1226:

Again, I will ask where the complaint against Apple is.

Apple supports loading other operating systems onto their Macintoshes, and even offers a free tool to assist.

»www.apple.com/support/bootcamp/

Goes back to my original question... if the group is complaining that Windows RT cannot be removed, then they also need to file suit against Apple. If they are just complaining about x86 based models, all they have to do is turn it off. This complaint seems very frivolous.

EUS
Kill cancer
Premium Member
join:2002-09-10
canada

1 edit

EUS to dave

Premium Member

to dave
said by dave:

All that bootcamp stuff is much easier than setting the 'secure boot' switch off in the BIOS, which is alleged to be beyond the capability of most Linux users.

While your remark is sarcastic, and while it doesn't bother me to turn off secure boot, or self-sign a certificate, if I change "most" to "new" in your sentence, then I can understand why some are flustered by the added hoops to jump through.
Whether it's actionable, dunno.
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

1 recommendation

dave

Premium Member

OK, but to a large extent, what people are buying are computers that are sold as Windows systems with installed Windows software. We seem to be discussing a hypothetical person who's going to buy a Windows PC and then install Linux, but not be confident enough to crack open the BIOS setup.

I think we can ignore the bare-motherboard category of purchasers here, since they will have no difficulty with this.

That seems to leave us with PCs that are sold without software but which nevertheless have secure-boot enabled so they can get the designed-for-Windows logo. Will there be any of these?

EUS
Kill cancer
Premium Member
join:2002-09-10
canada

EUS

Premium Member

Good question, my guess is no.
Personally, I fell into camp #1, and looking back, it was daunting enough to install a new o/s without having to think about BIOS.

That being said, Google wasn't around then, I relied on the thick book that came with a RH6 disk, and still couldn't get my modem to dial, because as you pointed out, it was built for windows.

Perhaps there's a trade off between amount of knowledge required to get things set up vs. the ease of getting the answers.

Steve
I know your IP address

join:2001-03-10
Tustin, CA

Steve

said by EUS:

Good question, my guess is no.
Personally, I fell into camp #1, and looking back, it was daunting enough to install a new o/s without having to think about BIOS.

We're not talking about requiring a hex debugger here; it's hitting <F2> and using some arrow keys. This is not even in the same magnitude as installing an operating system.

Those who suggest that it's so daunting to change a BIOS setting are either intentionally being inflammatory, or are too dumb to use a computer in the first place.

EUS
Kill cancer
Premium Member
join:2002-09-10
canada

EUS to dave

Premium Member

to dave
NM, thought it was eaten.
EUS

EUS to Steve

Premium Member

to Steve
said by Steve:

said by EUS:

Good question, my guess is no.
Personally, I fell into camp #1, and looking back, it was daunting enough to install a new o/s without having to think about BIOS.

We're not talking about requiring a hex debugger here; it's hitting <F2> and using some arrow keys. This is not even in the same magnitude as installing an operating system.

Those who suggest that it's so daunting to change a BIOS setting are either intentionally being inflammatory, or are too dumb to use a computer in the first place.

I don't see a problem with wanting to run a new O/S without having to learn everything about every single piece of the box.

Steve
I know your IP address

join:2001-03-10
Tustin, CA

Steve

said by EUS:

I don't see a problem with wanting to run a new O/S without having to learn everything about every single piece of the box.

I don't see a problem with wanting to date Angie Harmon either, but I don't throw a whiney hissy fit when it doesn't happen.

EUS
Kill cancer
Premium Member
join:2002-09-10
canada

1 recommendation

EUS

Premium Member

said by Steve:

said by EUS:

I don't see a problem with wanting to run a new O/S without having to learn everything about every single piece of the box.

I don't see a problem with wanting to date Angie Harmon either, but I don't throw a whiney hissy fit when it doesn't happen.

Who's whining?
You're the only one acting like a jackass.

Steve
I know your IP address

join:2001-03-10
Tustin, CA

Steve

said by EUS:

Who's whining?

Huh? Suggesting that a single BIOS setting is that daunting is beyond ridiculous compared with installing an operating system, and it shows the heights (depths?) of petty that many go through just to complain about Microsoft.

Sheesh.

EUS
Kill cancer
Premium Member
join:2002-09-10
canada

1 recommendation

EUS

Premium Member

It's a personal experience, on my first computer where I
Installed disk
Followed instructions
Reboot

I didn't want to think about BIOS, and more importantly didn't have to think about BIOS.

I do not see my complaint about MS.
But I guess that makes me dumb, or inflammatory, or a whiner, or a petty MS basher.

Steve
I know your IP address

join:2001-03-10
Tustin, CA

1 recommendation

Steve

said by EUS:

But I guess that makes me dumb, or inflammatory, or a whiner, or a petty MS basher.

"or" ?

EUS
Kill cancer
Premium Member
join:2002-09-10
canada

1 edit

EUS

Premium Member

Ah, nevermind.

Shadow01
Premium Member
join:2003-10-24
Wasteland

1 recommendation

Shadow01 to GILXA1226

Premium Member

to GILXA1226
said by GILXA1226:

said by rexbinary:

said by GILXA1226:

Again, I will ask where the complaint against Apple is.

Apple supports loading other operating systems onto their Macintoshes, and even offers a free tool to assist.

»www.apple.com/support/bootcamp/

Goes back to my original question... if the group is complaining that Windows RT cannot be removed, then they also need to file suit against Apple. If they are just complaining about x86 based models, all they have to do is turn it off. This complaint seems very frivolous.

Windows (Microsoft) is not selling hardware and software as a package, Apple is. They are not the same. Now if you want to make an argument that you should be able to purchase a Macintosh machine without any software, then by all means go ahead and file that complaint.

jimkyle
Btrieve Guy
Premium Member
join:2002-10-20
Oklahoma City, OK

jimkyle to Steve

Premium Member

to Steve
said by Steve:

Those who suggest that it's so daunting to change a BIOS setting are either intentionally being inflammatory, or are too dumb to use a computer in the first place,

Right. Just look for the sign "Beware of the leopard" and you can get right to the beginning of the trail...
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned) to dave

Member

to dave
said by dave:

All that bootcamp stuff is much easier than setting the 'secure boot' switch off in the BIOS, which is alleged to be beyond the capability of most Linux users.

You are making the wrong argument.
intok

intok (banned) to GILXA1226

Member

to GILXA1226
said by GILXA1226:

Goes back to my original question... if the group is complaining that Windows RT cannot be removed, then they also need to file suit against Apple. If they are just complaining about x86 based models, all they have to do is turn it off. This complaint seems very frivolous.

Because the requirement for X86 only has a requirement for an on switch, it never specifies a requirement for an off switch.

If you think an off switch will be ubiquitous in the future I have a bridge to sell you.
dave
Premium Member
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio

dave

Premium Member

said by intok:

Because the requirement for X86 only has a requirement for an on switch, it never specifies a requirement for an off switch.

Really, how hard is it to check facts?
said by ]wikipedia :

Microsoft's certification requirements eventually revealed that UEFI firmware on x86 systems must allow users to re-configure or turn off secure boot, but that this must not be possible on ARM-based systems (Windows RT).

(Sorry for non-authoritative source, I'm just heading out to work)

Steve
I know your IP address

join:2001-03-10
Tustin, CA

Steve

said by dave:

Really, how hard is it to check facts?

"Often wrong, but never unsure"