http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/03/windows-10-to-make-the-secure-boot-alt-os-lock-out-a-reality/
Fuck.
>arstechnica.com
This is not a serious tech site.
>secure boot can't be disabled on mobile
This also means notebooks, lel
>>47141144
I was concerned about that, too, but apparently it only covers phones and tablets under 8".
From what I've read, this not only affects Linux users. In fact, Linux DOES support UEFI.
Think about the *BSDs, think about the technicians not being able to fix shit because UEFI won't let them. There are many things wrong with this.
>>47141095
they were fine and honestly really respectable before gamergate, honestly good journalism
but i feel gross reading their shit now. way to fucking ruin a site.
>>47141593
>gamergate
>>>/out/
>>47141249
Also known as the devices that Microsoft currently offers free OEM licenses to.
Expect them to extend that to more hardware using SOCs along with the requirement to lock the device to Windows.
As SOC based devices become the norm even for the mid range expect it to become basically impossible for a normal person to be able to buy a computer that will run anything else.
Sure we'll still have component hardware at the high end, and developer focused SOC hardware at the low end but those aren't going to be mainstream products and that's going to drive the cost up, or the capabilities down.
Expect FSF and EFF to throw appropriate shitstorm and for Microsoft to reverse course
>>47141063
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
>>47141593
KEK what did they do to ruin themselves?
Daily reminder that Apple is now more open than Microsoft.
>>47143538
Too bad their hardware sucks
Well looks like instead of having dual boot, I will have only Linux. Good job Microsoft!
>>47141063
This can't be real.
>build your own rig
>this becomes a non-issue
inb4 another round of anti-trust lawsuits directed toward Microsoft
EFF and FSF are definitely going to have something to say about this.
>>47141659
As if he isn't in his peer group here. Go be a faggot elsewhere.
>>47144008
good luck "building" a laptop
>>47143955
It's not. It's compulsory for phones, but optional for laptops/desktops.
>>47144118
ok, you got me there, not an avid laptop user, so I didn't even consider it.
my bad
>>47144029
Why against Microsoft? It's the oems choice
>>47141593
please leave you fucking 12 year old
>>47144008
I assume that there is no way that Microsoft could ever convince boxed motherboard manufacturers to lock their shit down, right?
>>47144180
Just wait a few years for Microsoft to make the claim that for safety reasons windows requires secure boot to function properly, and then they'll disable booting without secure boot on windows.
>>47141559
I would also affect TrueCrypt.
But why would hardware makers want to block its customers from disabling secure boot?
What's in it for them?
>>47144335
>What's in it for them?
Microsoft could just drop or shave of a few dollars for any oem's that remove secure boot disabling.
>>47144413
They wont be that blatant, they'll probably make secure boot a requirement on their "signature edition" computers or something like that.
>>47141095
>said the MS shill.
>>47141095
I find it OK, can you name a few that are better though?
>>47142019
No one cares about those little organizations in the multi-billion dollar corporate world. The average pleb doesn't either, this is why it their blowback is not even a light breeze to them. 99% of the population doesn't give a shit, as long as they have their vidya.
>>47143538
>Daily reminder that both are fucking evil.
They are practically the same corporation. Controlled opposition.
So how will this affect non-Wangblows users?
>>47144328
Isn't Windows 10 supposed to be the last Windows non-server release? I thought they were only going to target Windows Server from Windows 10 on out, so this will be a non-issue. All their apps are going cloud-based.
>>47145402
This literally only affects people who dont want to use windows.
Did you not read it?
i like how nobody noticed the line that said it's up to the OEM whether or not to allow the user to disable secure boot
>>47145522
Because Microsoft can't bribe or otherwise influence OEMs. Because Intel hasn't succeeded using similar tactics.
>>47145585
There will always be a few OEMs that won't take the bribe for one reason or another. If you live in a country that actually has a justice system you could probably also invoke antitrust laws.
>>47145402
If you want to buy a laptop and install gentoo on it, you'll have to make sure it doesn't have 10 on it.
>>47145585
Until recently, Microsoft forced x86 OEMs to allow end-users the option to disable secureboot.
Wasn't the case for ARM though.
>>47145346
Europe cares enough, this shit won't fly under them
>>47144008
>you know have to actually look at OS compatibility on motherboards in addition to all the other shit because motherboards may exist where Win10 is the only OS allowed through secure boot which cannot be disabled
Sounds just great
And if you think they won't do it:
>every time you want to switch OSes you have to buy a new motherboard
Why the fuck would motherboard manufacturers NOT want you to have to do that?
>>47145522
OEMs used to be forced to not allow the user to disable secure boot if they wanted to be windows certified (which obviously all of them did). That was clearly better for end users.
just don't buy from a manufacture that does it.
problem solved
>>47145346
The FSF is definitely not a small organisation.
Both the FSF and EFF can make a legal complaint to China,the EU or the USA,and boom MS has a lawsuit.
>>47146377
> you have to buy a new motherboard
For what reason?
>>47146016
laptops are not classified as mobile.
>>47146366
I don't see how this is anti-trust.
The letter of the law says that it's up to the OEM to do what they want.
This is far different from Microsoft not allowing x86 OEMs to disable secureboot.
As an end user, this effects you practically not at all. All this means is that certain OEMs will get singled out and no one will buy from them.
>>47146504
where else is laptop listed then? Why wouldn't they list one of their main categories?
>>47146537
if it does go anti-trust it would be against the OEMS that disable the options not m$
>Lemote Yeeloong
>>47146686
My compatriot.
>Microsoft also mandated that every system must have a user-accessible switch to turn Secure Boot off, thereby ensuring that computers would be compatible with other operating systems. Microsoft's rules also required that users be able to add their own signatures and cryptographic certificates to the firmware, so that they could still have the protection that Secure Boot provides, while still having the freedom to compile their own software.
> this is somewhat subject to change, but right now, Microsoft says that the switch to allow Secure Boot to be turned off is now optional.
TPM with user-definable keys is an excellent security measure. TPM without user control means that somebody else owns your computer. Previously, Microsoft required the former, which in my opinion was a good thing. Now it just requires a TPM, which means that manufacturers are free to build machines that only run the OEM OS. (They could already do this if they were willing to forgo putting a MS logo on the machine) Microsoft does NOT -require- anyone to build machines that only boot one OS, they are simply allowing it. I don't like Microsoft, and obviously this decision is bad for consumers, but if you're careful not to buy locked down hardware then this isn't a problem. Motherboards marketed to DIYers aren't going to be locked down, and neither are Android devices, so it seems like the risk of user-controllable computers disappearing completely only applies to laptops.
Just about to upgrade to botnet 10.
Do I need to transfer to a USB to do it? Or can I just mount it and install form therE?
Someone explain to a pleb what that means to users with assembled pcs.
>>47148452
install gentoo
>>47146537
Because Microsoft still has a monopoly in Europe's eyes so their practises should be friendly to competition.
>>47148452
built your own? it doesn't mean shit
bought a prebuilt? it's up to the manufacturer to decide to allow users to enable or disable secure boot and/or TPM. if you can't disable secure boot, you can't use anything that doesn't have a signed bootloader.
OP's pic says OEMs may force it to be on.
That means some will still work with Linux
