UEFI secure booting (part 2)
Sep. 23rd, 2011 07:57 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mjg59Updated: Three things happened to defuse this situation:
As a result, the worst case scenario did not come to pass and it's still possible for users to install Linux on their systems.
Original content follows:
Microsoft have responded to suggestions that Windows 8 may make it difficult to boot alternative operating systems. What's interesting is that at no point do they contradict anything I've said. As things stand, Windows 8 certified systems will make it either more difficult or impossible to install alternative operating systems. But let's have some more background.
We became aware of this issue in early August. Since then, we at Red Hat have been discussing the problem with other Linux vendors, hardware vendors and BIOS vendors. We've been making sure that we understood the ramifications of the policy in order to avoid saying anything that wasn't backed up by facts. These are the facts:
Microsoft have a dominant position in the desktop operating system market. Despite Apple's huge comeback over the past decade, their worldwide share of the desktop market is below 5%. Linux is far below that. Microsoft own well over 90% of the market. Competition in that market is tough, and vendors will take every break they can get. That includes the Windows logo program, in which Microsoft give incentives to vendors to sell hardware that meets their certification requirements. Vendors who choose not to follow the certification requirements will be at a disadvantage in the marketplace. So while it's up to vendors to choose whether or not to follow the certification requirements, Microsoft's dominant position means that they'd be losing sales by doing so.
Why is this a problem? Because there's no central certification authority for UEFI signing keys. Microsoft can require that hardware vendors include their keys. Their competition can't. A system that ships with Microsoft's signing keys and no others will be unable to perform secure boot of any operating system other than Microsoft's. No other vendor has the same position of power over the hardware vendors. Red Hat is unable to ensure that every OEM carries their signing key. Nor is Canonical. Nor is Nvidia, or AMD or any other PC component manufacturer. Microsoft's influence here is greater than even Intel's.
What does this mean for the end user? Microsoft claim that the customer is in control of their PC. That's true, if by "customer" they mean "hardware manufacturer". The end user is not guaranteed the ability to install extra signing keys in order to securely boot the operating system of their choice. The end user is not guaranteed the ability to disable this functionality. The end user is not guaranteed that their system will include the signing keys that would be required for them to swap their graphics card for one from another vendor, or replace their network card and still be able to netboot, or install a newer SATA controller and have it recognise their hard drive in the firmware. The end user is no longer in control of their PC.
If Microsoft were serious about giving the end user control, they'd be mandating that systems ship without any keys installed. The user would then have the ability to make an informed and conscious decision to limit the flexibility of their system and install the keys. The user would be told what they'd be gaining and what they'd be giving up.
The final irony? If the user has no control over the installed keys, the user has no way to indicate that they don't trust Microsoft products. They can prevent their system booting malware. They can prevent their system booting Red Hat, Ubuntu, FreeBSD, OS X or any other operating system. But they can't prevent their system from running Windows 8.
Microsoft's rebuttal is entirely factually accurate. But it's also misleading. The truth is that Microsoft's move removes control from the end user and places it in the hands of Microsoft and the hardware vendors. The truth is that it makes it more difficult to run anything other than Windows. The truth is that UEFI secure boot is a valuable and worthwhile feature that Microsoft are misusing to gain tighter control over the market. And the truth is that Microsoft haven't even attempted to argue otherwise.
- Microsoft mandated that it be possible to disable Secure Boot on any Windows certified systems
- Microsoft mandated that it be possible for the user to replace the original Secure Boot keys on any Windows certified systems
- Microsoft were willing to sign alternative OS bootloaders with their signing keys
As a result, the worst case scenario did not come to pass and it's still possible for users to install Linux on their systems.
Original content follows:
Microsoft have responded to suggestions that Windows 8 may make it difficult to boot alternative operating systems. What's interesting is that at no point do they contradict anything I've said. As things stand, Windows 8 certified systems will make it either more difficult or impossible to install alternative operating systems. But let's have some more background.
We became aware of this issue in early August. Since then, we at Red Hat have been discussing the problem with other Linux vendors, hardware vendors and BIOS vendors. We've been making sure that we understood the ramifications of the policy in order to avoid saying anything that wasn't backed up by facts. These are the facts:
- Windows 8 certification requires that hardware ship with UEFI secure boot enabled.
- Windows 8 certification does not require that the user be able to disable UEFI secure boot, and we've already been informed by hardware vendors that some hardware will not have this option.
- Windows 8 certification does not require that the system ship with any keys other than Microsoft's.
- A system that ships with UEFI secure boot enabled and only includes Microsoft's signing keys will only securely boot Microsoft operating systems.
Microsoft have a dominant position in the desktop operating system market. Despite Apple's huge comeback over the past decade, their worldwide share of the desktop market is below 5%. Linux is far below that. Microsoft own well over 90% of the market. Competition in that market is tough, and vendors will take every break they can get. That includes the Windows logo program, in which Microsoft give incentives to vendors to sell hardware that meets their certification requirements. Vendors who choose not to follow the certification requirements will be at a disadvantage in the marketplace. So while it's up to vendors to choose whether or not to follow the certification requirements, Microsoft's dominant position means that they'd be losing sales by doing so.
Why is this a problem? Because there's no central certification authority for UEFI signing keys. Microsoft can require that hardware vendors include their keys. Their competition can't. A system that ships with Microsoft's signing keys and no others will be unable to perform secure boot of any operating system other than Microsoft's. No other vendor has the same position of power over the hardware vendors. Red Hat is unable to ensure that every OEM carries their signing key. Nor is Canonical. Nor is Nvidia, or AMD or any other PC component manufacturer. Microsoft's influence here is greater than even Intel's.
What does this mean for the end user? Microsoft claim that the customer is in control of their PC. That's true, if by "customer" they mean "hardware manufacturer". The end user is not guaranteed the ability to install extra signing keys in order to securely boot the operating system of their choice. The end user is not guaranteed the ability to disable this functionality. The end user is not guaranteed that their system will include the signing keys that would be required for them to swap their graphics card for one from another vendor, or replace their network card and still be able to netboot, or install a newer SATA controller and have it recognise their hard drive in the firmware. The end user is no longer in control of their PC.
If Microsoft were serious about giving the end user control, they'd be mandating that systems ship without any keys installed. The user would then have the ability to make an informed and conscious decision to limit the flexibility of their system and install the keys. The user would be told what they'd be gaining and what they'd be giving up.
The final irony? If the user has no control over the installed keys, the user has no way to indicate that they don't trust Microsoft products. They can prevent their system booting malware. They can prevent their system booting Red Hat, Ubuntu, FreeBSD, OS X or any other operating system. But they can't prevent their system from running Windows 8.
Microsoft's rebuttal is entirely factually accurate. But it's also misleading. The truth is that Microsoft's move removes control from the end user and places it in the hands of Microsoft and the hardware vendors. The truth is that it makes it more difficult to run anything other than Windows. The truth is that UEFI secure boot is a valuable and worthwhile feature that Microsoft are misusing to gain tighter control over the market. And the truth is that Microsoft haven't even attempted to argue otherwise.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-09-23 01:16 pm (UTC)Sadly, this "inform the user" approach doesn't work 100% of the time. A lot of questions like this (say, on initial boot) are answered by someone who is not the user. Think "Best Buy Optimized."
I didn't think about the case of hardware swaps, and that's even more anti-consumer.
(no subject)
From:One fix
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-28 03:12 pm (UTC) - ExpandPrimary Sales
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-28 03:25 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-28 04:24 pm (UTC) - Expandno subject
Date: 2011-09-23 01:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-23 02:38 pm (UTC) - ExpandHuh?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-26 04:43 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Huh?
From:Re: Huh?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-26 05:51 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Huh?
From:Re: Huh?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-11-20 10:27 pm (UTC) - ExpandPalladiation Arrives . . .
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-23 04:06 pm (UTC) - ExpandTreacherous Computing
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-23 04:24 pm (UTC) - ExpandI think your problem
Date: 2011-09-23 01:43 pm (UTC)Re: I think your problem
From:Re: I think your problem
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-24 08:05 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: I think your problem
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-27 05:43 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: I think your problem
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-26 04:02 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: I think your problem
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-27 05:41 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: I think your problem
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-28 04:05 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: I think your problem
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2013-10-17 11:50 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: I think your problem
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-23 01:52 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: I think your problem
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-26 06:31 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: I think your problem
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-26 11:55 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: I think your problem
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-23 11:52 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: I think your problem
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-25 05:15 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: I think your problem
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-28 02:21 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: I think your problem
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-28 02:55 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: I think your problem
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-28 10:39 pm (UTC) - ExpandHow are they misusing?
Date: 2011-09-23 01:46 pm (UTC)Re: How are they misusing?
From:I guess...
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-23 02:41 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: I guess...
From:Ah
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-23 03:08 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: How are they misusing?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-23 03:35 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: How are they misusing?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-23 04:35 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: How are they misusing?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-26 04:59 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: How are they misusing?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-28 02:27 pm (UTC) - ExpandAnother misuse of monopoly
Date: 2011-09-23 01:51 pm (UTC)You can't expect to be running a successful company if you're this fearful of competitors.
Re: Another misuse of monopoly
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-26 04:10 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Another misuse of monopoly
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-28 03:05 pm (UTC) - ExpandMicrosoft is a Monopoly if This happens
Date: 2011-09-23 01:59 pm (UTC)Most system vendors I know wouldn't lock you into....well anything. They'd rather make a sale then force you to use something you don't want.
I DO think having a central management authority over UEFI secure boot keys should be done or at the very least something like a multivendor alliance (like Open Handset Alliance but better...).
It would not help
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-23 02:17 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: It would not help
From:Re: Microsoft is a Monopoly if This happens
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-23 03:18 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Microsoft is a Monopoly if This happens
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2012-02-12 02:34 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Microsoft is a Monopoly if This happens
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-26 01:54 pm (UTC) - ExpandThis has anti-trust implications
Date: 2011-09-23 02:06 pm (UTC)If I were a manufacturer I might think long and hard about having to make that argument, especially if my co-defendant was a convicted monopolist.
Re: This has anti-trust implications
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-23 10:57 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: This has anti-trust implications
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-25 01:16 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: This has anti-trust implications
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-28 02:22 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: This has anti-trust implications
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-26 05:01 pm (UTC) - ExpandPlanned obsolecence at its best
Date: 2011-09-23 02:15 pm (UTC)If Microsoft changes its UEFI keys on a future version of Windows, hardware that only stores the former version of Microsoft's keys on the bootloader will be stuck forever on an old version of the operating system.
Re: Planned obsolecence at its best
From:Re: Planned obsolecence at its best
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-25 09:04 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: Planned obsolecence at its best
From:Re: Planned obsolecence at its best
From:Re: Planned obsolecence at its best
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2015-07-06 11:30 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Planned obsolecence at its best
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-23 07:54 pm (UTC) - ExpandWhat does this mean?
Date: 2011-09-23 02:26 pm (UTC)Does it mean that there will be hardware that refuses to boot anything that is not signed by Microsoft? (due to "incentives" provided by Microsoft)
If so, I assume that would be a gross violation of Antitrust laws everywhere and Microsoft should be brought to court ASAP over it if it happens, and warned in advance of this beforehand.
If instead it just means that the BIOS/bootloader won't give you "warm fuzzy security feelings" when you boot something not signed by Microsoft, most likely nobody really cares.
Re: What does this mean?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-23 03:37 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: What does this mean?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-26 04:53 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: What does this mean?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-25 05:21 am (UTC) - ExpandHow many...
Date: 2011-09-23 02:28 pm (UTC)versus buying from a component retailer?
Do you think ASUS, MSI etc will ship their consumer boxed MB's with secure boot enabled? Not if they want to shift any they units won't.
Of course the MB's they supply to HP, DELL etc will have exactly what the OEM wants on it and nothing else.
So we have a situation where Microsoft are looking at the issue from their perspective (shock horror), their competitors are throwing FUD.
You need to be engaging the Todd Bradley's of the world to get a commitment to allow disabling of secure boot if the USER wants to. That way we all win. 90% of the market sees no change and the rest get to choose. Note nothing to do with the OS vendor is required. The FOSS community is making itself look pretty crazy atm sadly.
Re: How many...
From:Re: How many...
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-23 06:46 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: How many...
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-24 11:21 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: How many...
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-25 05:25 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: How many...
From:Re: How many...
From:Re: How many...
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-12-28 10:18 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: How many...
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-23 04:05 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: How many...
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-24 01:36 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: How many...
From:Re: How many...
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-26 02:24 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: How many...
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-26 05:04 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: How many...
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2012-03-02 03:41 am (UTC) - Expandno subject
Date: 2011-09-23 02:31 pm (UTC)User in control ?
Date: 2011-09-23 02:36 pm (UTC)What will happen to your data ?
How can you recover your system in this case ?
Will Microsoft provide some signed removable bootable device to restore its operating system on your system ?
How anti-virus vendor will be able to provide tools to remove malware is such cases ?
Re: User in control ?
From:no subject
Date: 2011-09-23 02:50 pm (UTC)â– Windows 8 certification does not require that UEFI secure boot can't be disabled
â– Windows 8 startup does not require that the user be enables UEFI secure boot.
â– Windows 8 certification does not prevent the system shipping with any keys other than Microsoft's.
â– A system that ships with UEFI secure boot enabled and only includes Ubuntu's signing keys will only securely boot Ubuntu operating systems.
See the thing with this is that it is entirely down to what the OEMs decide to provide in their hardware implementation and that is fundamentally down to what purchasers want from their systems. Microsoft have no say other than it'll need a Microsoft key and secure boot support if they want to brand it as a Windows 8 PC, which makes sense.
It's not hard to see why, for example, a bank that runs Windows on it's corporate desktop might not want anyone booting from another OS that will be able to compromise system security and so will prefer systems that follow that approach. Equally systems sold to the general public will more likely have a flexible approach to how they're used.
It's about having the freedom to choose what functionality is in the PC you buy. Isn't that supposed to be a good thing?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-23 10:51 pm (UTC) - ExpandWhy not?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-28 02:10 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-23 06:32 pm (UTC) - ExpandWell said, but...
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-25 11:09 am (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-26 05:07 pm (UTC) - Expandno subject
Date: 2011-09-23 03:41 pm (UTC)> the user has no way to indicate that they don't trust Microsoft products.
Very much to the point. Trust depends on mutuality. It's put very well in this short video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnXU7z2_6Jg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnXU7z2_6Jg)
umm yes you do
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-23 03:42 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: umm yes you do
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-23 03:45 pm (UTC) - Expandantitrust anything, part N?
Date: 2011-09-23 04:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-23 05:16 pm (UTC)Secondly, I wholeheartedly agree with the comments that the EU isn't going to like the anti-compatitive nature of this if it happens in Europe.
Thirdly, I'm wondering what happens if someone buys a computer then goes down the path of not agreeing with the Windows licence conditions when it powers up. Historically, one's been able to install Linux at that point (then go hunting a refund for the cost of the OEM Windows licence, in an ideal world) but with secure boot, one might end up with a brick. The refund requests could get interesting.
Fourthly, I'm guessing there are ways to circumvent secure boot. It would be ironic if Microsoft's actions both gave circumventers an excuse under the DMCA in the USA and an incentive, Ã la Playstation and XBox.
(no subject)
From:Key compromises
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-24 02:49 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Key compromises
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-25 05:33 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: Key compromises
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2012-05-21 08:51 am (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-27 02:42 pm (UTC) - ExpandWeak arguments
Date: 2011-09-23 06:05 pm (UTC)OEMs design computers and install operating systems according to customer demand. Not every PC is capable of running MacOS. Not every PC is capable of running Linux. If you want a Linux PC, buy a Linux PC. If you want a Mac, buy a Mac. Somehow it's expected that if you buy a Windows PC, that it must be capable of running every other operating system out there.
This is the age of appliance computing, brought to you by Apple. The age of tinkering has passed. There is nothing in Microsofts logo program that prevents OEMs from giving end users the options to disable Secure Boot, and nothing preventing them from engaging the Linux community to get some keys established.
I fail to see how this is Microsoft's problem to ensure that their business partners build products that support a competing product.
Re: Weak arguments
From:Re: Weak arguments
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-23 10:53 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Weak arguments
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-24 12:41 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: Weak arguments
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-23 07:11 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Weak arguments
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-23 10:20 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Weak arguments
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-24 04:06 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Weak arguments
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-24 09:17 pm (UTC) - ExpandVALUE???!?!?!?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2012-08-30 07:35 pm (UTC) - Expandcourts take a *l*o*n*g* time
Date: 2011-09-23 07:07 pm (UTC)1) Microsoft can point at the OEMs and say it was their fault for not providing the end-user with a way to add keys.
2) Even if the courts do direct this back at Microsoft - it could easily take five years before anything happens. At that point Microsoft gets slapped with a billion dollar fine and told not to do that again - but by that point the new nefarious Windows9 scheme is already underway.
Re: courts take a *l*o*n*g* time
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-24 09:20 pm (UTC) - ExpandSource based distro's?
Date: 2011-09-23 07:32 pm (UTC)Re: Source based distro's?
From:Re: Source based distro's?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-24 09:21 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Source based distro's?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-27 11:21 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: Source based distro's?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-26 01:39 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: Source based distro's?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2012-05-21 08:56 am (UTC) - ExpandBug-free firmware?
Date: 2011-09-23 09:07 pm (UTC)/sarcasm
In reality there will be bugs, naive implementations, etc. While (especially Windows pirates) will get through that (and stupidly continue dealing with it like there's no underlying problem), I don't want to have to fight to get my machine booting an OS I want (Gentoo here).
Are we even that much better off from getting away from BIOS anyway? Just because something is old, standardised (yet still not very much open source) does not mean it does not work. Give me the REAL benefits of UEFI vs BIOS that aren't aesthetic improvements. I hear standard API, good. I hear 'awesome graphics', don't care. Boot time improvement? Maybe interested, not really (as I rarely reboot, only Windows and Ubuntu/Debian machines do that constantly; even Apple rarely sends an update that requires a reboot).
This is written on a Mac (Lion upgraded). We can still choose any OS we want here (except can't go down a version from the one that came with the machine), EFI (and we can even install 'old-fashioned' BIOS based OS's too). I wonder if Apple will get involved, but considering Microsoft's track record with Apple I think not. Apple sells hardware after all. This is much more reflected in the price of Lion.
'We don't care if Apple succeeds in their endeavour or not.' <-- technical evangelist at MS, revealed during the anti-trust case, regarding Apple using certain MS technology (Win32 for Mac primarily) to 'improve' their apps in MacOS
Buy Macs and tell Apple why. Tell them you like choice. Apple loves marketing random things that make no real sense to the average consumer, but 'sound good'. In the end, this would be good.
Re: Bug-free firmware?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-24 09:31 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Bug-free firmware?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-25 09:50 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: Bug-free firmware?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2012-02-16 02:02 pm (UTC) - ExpandNot 'anti-piracy' but 'anti-competitive'
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2012-08-30 08:47 pm (UTC) - ExpandAppealing to the wrong authority
Date: 2011-09-23 11:30 pm (UTC)There's a problem. MS are in-scope to define the hardware features necessary to their own software. They would be out of scope to mandate even one iota more than that. Imho, a healthy market does not want MS (or any other vendor) mandating the set of keys which must be installed, even if 'the mandated set of keys' == 'no keys'. Similarly, MS should not be choosing the UEFI featureset delivered. Why should such this power be ceded to Microsoft? Answer - it should not. MS should only say which features are necessary to get its own products running. OEMs can deliver those features if they want MS software to work, but beyond that, no OEM should be taking its marching orders from MS.
There needs to be some other authority which provides mandates for things within this higher scope. Right now that authority is "the market" - but apparently you have little confidence that the market will demand the sort of openness you want to see. So I suppose you should start lobbying governments. Don't lobby MS to flex its muscles for you, because that cedes future power to them, which you might not want them to have.
Re: Appealing to the wrong authority
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-24 06:27 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Appealing to the wrong authority
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-25 05:37 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: Appealing to the wrong authority
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-25 05:01 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Appealing to the wrong authority
From:Re: Appealing to the wrong authority
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-26 08:38 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: Appealing to the wrong authority
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-27 11:26 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: Appealing to the wrong authority
From:Requesting a article on UEFI Secure Booting
Date: 2011-09-24 12:07 am (UTC)Re: Requesting a article on UEFI Secure Booting
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-24 06:47 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Requesting a article on UEFI Secure Booting
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-27 02:45 pm (UTC) - ExpandAlert EU comission
Date: 2011-09-24 02:39 am (UTC)the only way i can think to avoid this is to alert the responsible authorities at Europe about the problem, letting them now about all the information we have and maybe give a plan to try to protect us.
They are the only ones that have fought the microsoft monopoly with some results.
It is best to alert them as soon as we can. The lawyers out there and for example fsf should do something.
Re: Alert EU comission
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-24 09:38 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Alert EU comission
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2012-05-21 09:04 am (UTC) - ExpandFUD
Date: 2011-09-24 08:25 am (UTC)RedHat spreads FUD, and everybody is ready to scream bloody murder.
"there's no central certification authority for UEFI signing keys"
How is this Microsoft's fault? Maybe companies like RedHat should have brought this up when spec was finalized.
Many spammers use rootkit infested machines to do their work, yet RedHat is upset that Microsoft is trying to combat this in future machines.
Linux companies should work with OEMs on a plan. Microsoft is working within an industry standard and is not doing anything illegal. Period. End of story.
Re: FUD
From:Re: FUD
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-24 04:38 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: FUD
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-25 05:39 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: FUD
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-25 07:06 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: FUD
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-26 12:13 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: FUD
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-24 07:02 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: FUD
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-24 07:13 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: FUD
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-24 07:16 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: FUD
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-28 02:26 pm (UTC) - ExpandSo I guess CoreBoot is dead?
Date: 2011-09-24 11:05 am (UTC)Re: So I guess CoreBoot is dead?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-24 11:38 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: So I guess CoreBoot is dead?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-24 11:41 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: So I guess CoreBoot is dead?
From:Re: So I guess CoreBoot is dead?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-24 09:40 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: So I guess CoreBoot is dead?
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-09-27 05:53 am (UTC) - Expand