linuxfluesterer wrote:Sorry, the real problem is UEFI. At first you can read the comment of Linus Torvalds here:
So, I will ask you really, where is any advantage then for Linux? And why does Torvalds attack UEFI? I know, before he said, UEFI is a good idea, but it is realized in a very bad way...
linuxfluesterer wrote:Second: of course someone must pay for UEFI Secure Key licence, at least Redhat will pay:
And Canonical (Ubuntu) is going it's own way to licence it.
And here, you can see, that Verisign does the service for Microsoft to certify a Secure Boot key...
Verisign is the executing company for Microsoft only....
linuxfluesterer wrote:So, my suggestion: Why don't sell the computers without any bundled OS and Secure Boot key (UEFI) and tell the customers, if you want have Windows, you must pay the licence fee for Windows 8 and UEFI also.
linuxfluesterer wrote:And why let Linus Torvalds or the distributors don't let create their own secure boot key, created maybe in the moment, when the distribution is installed (like ssl)?
linuxfluesterer wrote:You can agree to UEFI, ok, but don't tell anybody it's a good thing for any other OS than Windows 8.
linuxfluesterer wrote:And the hack of Samsung UEFI shows, that it IS possible to write into UEFI code. This is a trap, opened to a curious OS like Windows has been it and is growing more and more to.
linuxfluesterer wrote:3. Modern OS like Linux can handle hardware by themselves, so there is no really need for a new BIOS.
linuxfluesterer wrote:Because the hardware consortium may reject ANY key at any time, if they want to do it.
And MS has the power to force the hardware companies to do it. Alone this possibility is a threaten.
linuxfluesterer wrote:Btw, did anyone talk with Linus Torvalds to find a good solution in UEFI /Secure Boot? What I mean is, in the world there are more servers running with Linux than with Windows. It is due to UNIX reliability.
linuxfluesterer wrote:UEFI is implemented on motherboard, but it can be overwritten, the code can be changed, because it is no more ROM.
And I am sure, MS or maybe the hardware seller will make a 'Secure Update' whenever they think, it is necessary to do. Call it 'patch', call it 'features', whatever you like it...
linuxfluesterer wrote:In my case I am very content with my Core i5 combined with 8GByte Ram and ssd.
I switched off UEFI Boot, and I've got my fastest machine ever, well recognised hardware by linux. So, which benefit for me, for Linux to use Secure Boot? But in case I would boot any Windows 8 (with Secure Boot), there IS the danger, that MS will make a 'Secure Boot patch' and this could mean, I can't boot my Linux no more. This is the threaten.
linuxfluesterer wrote:Another thing is, how to make non knowing, but interested people, who would like to test a Linux distro, when they must learn how to handle UEFI deactivation (my SL KDE Daily Build from some days ago could not boot, when UEFI is activated)? Not many of them do know about this? It's too complicated and not it is not fair. Mandatory means, what MS wants to be mandatory.
linuxfluesterer wrote:The only real perspective I see for future is, that Android and Apple (iPad) will replace the market of computers with their tablets and that the customers won't need any Windows product any more. It is like always: MS is too late, sleeping (like in case with Netscape and the Internet Explorer) and now they try to prevent the customers using another product. But for me, I regret deeply, when I can't buy a new laptop in some years any more.
[/quote]linuxfluesterer wrote:-Linuxfluesterer (I love KDE ...)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest