Linux’s worst-case scenario: Windows 10 makes Secure Boot mandatory, locking out other operating sys
-
I don't find it surprising that MS would try to strong-arm manufacturers into making the install more difficult, because right now distros like Mint, Elementary, etc., are arguably easier-to-use than Windows 8.
As I understand it, there is no MS strong-arming at all. It is simply that MS will no longer mandate that manufacturers provide the firmware option to disable Secure Boot on new machines upon which Windows 10 is installed (an option that was mandated by MS for x86 machines after the initial uproar over this issue in the open source community in 2011).
It will be up to the manufacturers to decide if/when it makes more sense to provide the option to disable Secure Boot or not. (For example, some speculate that manufacturers may be more likely to provide the option on desktops where users are more likely to multi-boot or change OSs, and less likely to provide the option on laptops… ...but that all remains to be seen.)
-
I suppose I should point out two details here. This is a BIOS feature, upgrading an existing Windows XP or 7 system will not magically enable SecureBoot on your system. Second … MS is allowing vendors to not have an option to disable it; that is not the same as requiring that it can't be disabled. That is to say, vote with your wallet - purchase hardware that still has the option to disable it.
-
Not all of those distros are going to be used by consumers though.
Parted magic isn't tails isn't ubuntu isn't steam os.
There's a flavor of linux for every use case you might have. Which is one of the reasons it's so versital but also the reason it's harder to support without active community involvement.
I'd say the biggest concern with secureboot is live usb OS's. A privacy advocate can't just run tails off a usb stick with secureboot, a hobbyist or IT person can't run parted magic from a usb drive if secureboot is enabled. Etc.
You can't do what you want with the machine with secure boot.
-
As I understand it, there is no MS strong-arming at all. It is simply that MS will no longer mandate that manufacturers provide the firmware option to disable Secure Boot
Never heard anything about a someone called Pontius Pilate?
-
As I understand it, there is no MS strong-arming at all. It is simply that MS will no longer mandate that manufacturers provide the firmware option to disable Secure Boot
Never heard anything about a someone called Pontius Pilate?
Exactly. "It's not like I'm going to ORIGINATE an injustice (the manufacturers can disable secure boot if they wish) but hey - I'm not going to proactively seek justice, either (so if the market perceives they have to have secure boot to get our OS at a discount for volume, it's not like I'm going to turn them away!)" Go Pilate!