18 replies to this topic

[Vagabond]

The question is how far this will go.  Will it cover all computers?  Could it?

http://boingboing.ne...os-maker-p.html

It's outrageous as it stands... but my guess is it's just the first step.  Can the FOSS community unite and defend itself?

[saturnian]

It's definitely worth taking the time to check out the comments following that article.

[V.T. Eric Layton]

This is nothing new... trying to lock down hardware for use with only one particular OS. Back in the ugly old days, I remember HP and Compaq machines that would only run with HP or Compaq licensed MS Windows on them. If you tried to install your own OEM Windows, the BIOS would look for a particular .dll that was only on the manufacture-licensed Win OS. If it didn't find it, no boot.

This is a newer, more insidious means to lock down hardware. This is Microsoft and the hardware manufacturers fixing the game so that consumers can ONLY use one MS installation of Windows on one system. They've been moving in this direction for years. It started when the manufacturers stopped providing the full Windows installation disks with the purchase of the hardware.

The idea is that if you corrupt or destroy the OS or the hardware, you must pay $$$ to get the machine working. Or you must purchase a new locked down machine. You won't be able to salvage the system easily as a normal everyday user by installing a GNU/Linux distro or your own OEM copy of Windows. The object, of course, is to force the consumer/computer user to spend more $$$.

GNU/Linux and Open Source are a threat to for-profit companies. It's true that at this time only a small percentage of $$$ is lost to users of GNU/Linux and Open Source, but the greedy companies are looking far down the road. They're preparing. They're protecting their assets. It's in the interest of their stock holders that they institute policies/plans such as the one talked about in this article.

It will only get techie types up-in-arms, though. The vast majority of computer and device users the world over won't know or care anything about this.

[Cookie]

This $99 thing is about setting a precedent.  If Microsoft can pimp the Linux distros out there for $99 each.  they then can begin the process of regulating what software these distros are allowed to offer their users.  If Libre is starting to gain too much of a following, which I believe it is, then Microsoft will be able to pressure their licensed Linux b**ches into removing them from their repositories.  Will Microsoft offer Office for Linux?  No.   But they can make it harder for Libre to exist.

This is just a small step towards bringing Linux into the fold.

[Cookie]

Mint will pay it.  So will Ubuntu.  How many other distros will pay this extorted ransom?  My guess is...a lot of them.

But, if they do not see the writing on the wall...

[Vagabond]

More:

http://fossforce.com...hone/#more-1655

See the second page.

[crp]

I don't have an issue with Microsoft and the board makers doing this for ARM based machines, but for a pc? ugh & yuck.

My response: I won't buy a pc that does not have an easy unlocking function.

[sunrat]

This ain't over.

[LilBambi]

Shouldn't have been allowed for ARM, PCs or any others. This is nuts, ludicrous, and not right.

[LilBambi]

Some additional discussion:

Acquiring a system with copyleft hardware

countable infinities only - Logical discussion regarding the UEFI fedora and secure boot by Gregory Maxwell - PiperMail - Fedora Project

Re: Need more info: UEFI Secure Boot in Fedora - Alan Cox - lwn.net - also Fedora Project

[sunrat]

The Fedora discussion (LiBambi's second link) confuses as much as makes sense. Why are Fedora going it alone rather than engaging the whole Linux community? However their Red Hat link means they need to ensure their distro can be used on future hardware from a commercial consideration.
Apparently Secure Boot can be disabled with physical access to the computer, enabling Linux installation. This will however render that computer unbootable by Windows 8. It's a messy situation. Might be time to buy a highest-spec, non-crippled PC and hope it works for ever.
FSF are running a petition to hardware makers to implement Secure Boot in a way that allows free software to still be installed. I put my name on it. Stand up for your freedom to install free software

[LilBambi]

Can't sign the petition there. There is some sort of internal error. Even when you are signed in it doesn't work right now.

[securitybreach]

LilBambi, on 04 June 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

Can't sign the petition there. There is some sort of internal error. Even when you are signed in it doesn't work right now.

Same here:

Quote

Sorry. A non-recoverable error has occurred.
The requested Profile (gid=37) is disabled OR it is not configured to be used for 'Profile' listings in its Settings OR there is no Profile with that ID OR you do not have permission to access this profile. Please contact the site administrator if you need assistance.

[Vagabond]

http://www.internetn...softs-help.html

[Cookie]

I am betting that Fedora is banking on the fact the a lot of the smaller distros will not pay the blood money on principle.  Any distro that does not cave, is just one less that Fedora has to compete with.

I know that Linux is not all about competition, but it has to be a little about competition. Otherwise, why build and market a distro at all?

[sunrat]

LilBambi, on 04 June 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

Can't sign the petition there. There is some sort of internal error. Even when you are signed in it doesn't work right now.

Hmmm, strange. It worked for me yesterday. I filled in name and email address then submitted. Got a confirmation email, clicked the link in it and done.
I didn't have to sign in, and am not registered at FSF anyway.

[LilBambi]

sunrat, on 04 June 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

Hmmm, strange. It worked for me yesterday. I filled in name and email address then submitted. Got a confirmation email, clicked the link in it and done.
I didn't have to sign in, and am not registered at FSF anyway.

You broke it!

It didn't work either way; not signed in or a member. Signed up after it didn't work, but it still didn't work.

[sunrat]

This is a very interesting blog post by Matthew Garret from Fedora. It probably gives the best overview of Secure Boot and what Fedora are doing about it.
Implementing UEFI Secure Boot in Fedora

And if you have a spare hour or so, the discussion on debian-user mail list is interesting.
the ghost of UEFI and Micr0$0ft

The main problem I can fathom is that it will make dual booting Windows and Linux difficult unless the Linux has a certificate, such as the one Fedora has bought.
Secure Boot will be able to be disabled if you just want to run Linux or any non-MS OS.

[sunrat]

Looks like Suse are proposing a solution which is almost a hybrid of the Fedora and Ubuntu approaches.

SUSE Linux Outlines Its Plans for Windows 8 Secure Boot