Will Secure Boot Cripple Linux Compatibility? 545
MojoMax writes "The advent of Windows 8 is drawing ever nearer and recently we have learned that ARM devices installed with Windows 8 will not be able to disable the UEFI secure boot feature that many of us are deeply concerned about. However, UEFI is still a very real danger to Linux and the freedom to use whichever OS you chose. Regardless of information for OEMs to enable customers to install their own keys, such as that published by the Linux Foundation, there are still very serious and as yet unresolved issues with using secure boot and Linux. These issues are best summarized quoting Matthew Garrett: 'Signing the kernel isn't enough. Signed Linux kernels must refuse to load any unsigned kernel modules. Virtualbox on Linux? Dead. Nvidia binary driver on Linux? Dead. All out of tree kernel modules? Utterly, utterly dead. Building an updated driver locally? Not going to happen. That's going to make some people fairly unhappy.'"
Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Freedom" (Score:5, Insightful)
Tablets won't be able to be fully certified by MS if they don't have secure boot enabled with no way of disabling it. There may be some manufacturers that opt to have a second line for Linux, but I doubt that will be very common. The problem is one of logistics it's not that much cheaper to have a second line that supports Linux, you have to support it and QA it. But, if you just ship hardware that's supported by Linux then you lose no money on that and sell more units. Of course MS is the party here that's misbehaving.
The issue is that ultimately, they're selling these devices that can't have other OSes installed without cracking them, that's inherently a freedom issue.
What this really affects (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't buy the incompatible hardware. Done. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think /. comprises that much of the tablet market.
Re:"Freedom" (Score:2, Insightful)
The fundamental problem is that the relative market share is such that a whole lot of OEM's won't bother with non-Microsoft hardware. Given Microsoft's market share, they won't see adequate money in it (there would be money, just not enough). Add in Microsoft's perpensity to bully and persuade OEM's, the hardware just won't be there for the most part.
And this still doesn't address the problem of not really owning your hardware, which is what this change does. You will be absolutely limited in what software your hardware can run.
Re:"Freedom" (Score:2, Insightful)
The issue is that ultimately, they're selling these devices that can't have other OSes installed without cracking them, that's inherently a freedom issue.
So is Apple, but more to the point nothing is stopping Linux tablets from coming to market, in fact there are lots of them out there now. If you buy a 'Designed for Windows 8' device it's no different than buying an iPad with regard to the operating system. I doubt there are many people out there who bought an iPad and are complaining that they can't install Linux on it (me included), so why should it be any different for these 'Designed for Windows 8' devices?
Re:What this really affects (Score:5, Insightful)
Reminds me of when drug testing started to take hold in the 1970s - "If you don't want to drug test, you can choose to work at a job where you don't." Except generally, assholism comes with built-in scope creep. Now you can't get a job at Home Depot pushing carts without having machines inspect your personal fluids to determine your off-work behavior. The simply "if you don't like X, then go elsewhere" so-called 'solution' is a fallacy, and always has been. It's a way to avoid a problem; it does not fix anything, or prevent a problem from getting worse.
Another great example - "Don't like crime in this city? Move to another city." Or "Don't like the shitty laws here? Move to another country." {And when the countries of the world unite to form a cartel of shitty laws worldwide -- for instance ACTA -- they will be far harder to fight.}
Re:What this really affects (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Freedom" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Freedom" (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see why Microsoft, the owner of the Windows trademark, cannot impose whatever rules it wants to on manufacturers who want to put the Windows logo on their products. This was a big deal in the 90's because Microsoft already had huge platform lock-in, so it was unfeasible to ship a product that wasn't Windows-certified. But on ARM? There's no Windows ARM software available, no multi-decade legacy of crap following behind it, so where is the lock-in? The Windows logo no longer indicates a platform advantage, it merely indicates you passed Microsoft's tests.
A manufacturer can still make an ARM device that runs Windows and allow Linux as well -- they just can't put the Windows logo on it.
The problem is stupid consumers who demand to see that logo.
This is more than just a phone and tablet issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now, the ARM architecture equates to tablets and phones for many, maybe most people.
However, a number of companies (Qualcomm, NVIDIA, and others) have announced that they are developing ARM processors to challenge Intel in laptops and desktop systems. Probably they are going with ARM because Intel is being somewhat uncooperative (and maybe anticompetitive) by not letting them have licenses that would allow them to produce x86 compatible systems.
For these companies, having Windows on their ARM systems is vital. However, we shouldn't be short-sighted - restricting the ability for ARM systems to boot anything but Windows will (in the long run) benefit Intel, AMD, Via, etc. as much as it will benefit Microsoft by restricting which operating systems the upcoming ARM based systems can boot. They will either run Windows or they will run everything else, depending on the boot ROM in the system. Guess which most will chose.
Re:"Freedom" (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a freedom argument. If I purchase a device then it is MINE. I should be able to control it, take it apart, paint it a different color, give it to my kids, etc. And this freedom means I should be able to put my own software on it without permission from some bozos in Redmond.
Pre-installed Linux is only halfway there. It means I can't change the linux if I want to, or put on BSD, etc. Stop treating these devices like stupid consumer gadgets. Ok, they probably are going to be just that in practice, but that doesn't mean they should be forbidden to be more than hipster jewelry.
Re:"Freedom" (Score:5, Insightful)
Because when you buy a device you should be allowed to modify it. It is your private property at that point. It doesn't matter how many stupid people only use them to show off to friends, if even one single person in the entire world wants to be able to modify their personal property in a way that causes no harm to others then it is their right to do so.
Re:"Freedom" (Score:5, Insightful)
Other way around. These are linux (andriod) tablet makers being paid by MS to make a Windows version. Just like phones, these will be samsung galaxy tabs, acer iconias etc. with a minor refresh/rebrand to run windows. Not windows tablets being done the other way around.
The gadget market is very different from the desktop market anyway. Right now it's an iPad market, with some other hangers on. Whether MS can change that is an open question, but it's not like you can put linux on your iPad, and it has 90% of the market right now.
Re:What this really affects (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, whoosh. My point went over your head based on your metaphor that does not represent the situation at all.
A more apt metaphor would be: What if new devices started using proprietary screwdriver bits? Maybe they get a kickback from the screwdriver bit industry, or manufacture the bits themselves to pad their profit (remember the outrage when the iPhone changed its screws?). The "if you don't want that tool, buy another tool" metaphor simply does not work. You cannot use their tool because they have changed it to be less adaptable. People can buy phillips and flathead screwed devices 'til the cow comes home, but there's enough mindless consumers and people that it would not change the bottom line enough for $CORPORATION to change their ways. After another company sees the money they make, they start using proprietary screws too. Eventually, it becomes an industry trend. You can either shell out for the proprietary screwdriver, or use none of these devices. Either way, your unwillingness to go with a bullshit 'feature' does nothing to stop that bullshit from creeping into every device in existence; you merely stuck your head in the sand.
YOU actually come off as the entitled one here, except that you feel entitlement for the faceless corporations that are only interested in your money, rather than for yourself and your own freedom of market choice. You somehow feel that if they were forced to offer something that costs the same to make, but allows people greater freedom, that somehow this affects your livelihood or your "feelings" on what a corporation should be allowed to do. Unless you're a CEO yourself, you're simply loving to learn the taste of the boots you lick. In fact, simply boycotting a product does not make its shitty features go away. And corporations were originally only allowed to continue existing if they served the public good; otherwise they died a mandatory, automatic death sentence. (That is, before those same corporations and their cronies re-wrote the law so that they have more rights than actual people. Privatize profits, socialize losses, no death penalty if you're a corp, and if you're a CEO you can kill someone and not go to jail because you're deemed more important than others.)
I mean, imagine someone saying "if you don't like the fact that airbags can decapitate your baby, then don't get a car with airbags". Do you think that stopped them from coming? Now I am in danger of responding to your bad metaphor with another metaphor, but my point -- which still stands -- is that simply avoiding something you don't like does not make it go away.
It's not a "simple solution". It is neither simple, nor a solution. It is not simple to reduce your freedom of choice, and it is not a solution in any way, shape, or form. A solution solves a problem. The problem still exists. You've done nothing.
"Don't like wars over oil? Then don't buy gas!"
"Don't like abortions? Then don't have one!" (This is a trick example, as I *love* abortions. But to someone who thinks abortions represent a problem {which is not me} -- this 'solution' does not actually solve the 'problem'.)
"Don't like the encroachment of civil liberties in the name of the drug war? Then don't do drugs (alternate: move to another country)."
"Don't like cops tasering people? Then don't mouth off to cops!"
Anyone who thinks this attitude constitutes a solution has a major cognitive logic defect.
Windows is Oranges in this case (Score:5, Insightful)
knoppix and other testing / recovery secure boot (Score:5, Insightful)
knoppix and other testing / recovery tools also need secure boot.
Does networking booting work with secure boot?
Ghost?
Hard Drive Diagnostics tools (self booting ones)
Dell Diagnostics tools (self booting ones)?
Acronis True Image
clonezilla?
Memtest86+ (better and more to the hardware then the windows memory test tool)
There is alot of stuff some still dos based that is need out side of windows.
Re:"Freedom" (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything will be "Designed for Windows 8" if it runs Windows.
And Microsoft also doesn't have to sell them licenses they can put on devices that don't meet the guidelines.
Google may continue to fight but all MS has to do is hinder and slow it.
Go find me a motherboard or graphics card that don't have the logo. Go on, do it. I doubt you can.
What the hell. Not a few years ago restrictions like this were acknowledged as being bad. Now people can't rush fast enough to defend lock down like this, especially with Microsoft pushing it.
Point missed ... entirely (Score:5, Insightful)
You buy a screwdriver and use the handle to pound in nails when they stop making hammers because Microsoft uses their monopoly to drive hammer makers out of the market.
Re:"Freedom" (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course you're free to take a walk in your own front yard, just watch out for the tiger pits we put in. And the bear traps. OH, and the unmarked minefield. But we have done absolutely nothing to stop you from taking a nice walk in your own front yard.
Re:"Freedom" (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, no. It's a HUGE platform advantage, because they can place the same logo on tablets and desktops. The catch with the Windows 8 tablet is the software is available only via the store. This is great for Microsoft, because they can say "buy the software for Windows 8 on our store, and you can use it on both your desktop and tablet!"
So they link the desktop monopoly to the tablet space, and leverage it to extend their reach into another.
Can they? I deeply suspect that Microsoft will make OEMs agree that any and all tablets running Windows will meet the logo requirements, or they won't get the OEM agreement they want (IE no Windows for your tablets.)
And that's exactly what Microsoft is banking on. Oh and finding some way to drive Android out of the market.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Freedom" (Score:3, Insightful)
Everything will be "Designed for Windows 8" if it runs Windows.
No it won't.
And Microsoft also doesn't have to sell them licenses they can put on devices that don't meet the guidelines.
Citation? They don't have to give them discounts, but then the manufacturers don't have to sell them with Windows either, they could sell them with Linux.
Google may continue to fight but all MS has to do is hinder and slow it.
Hinder and slow it? Android dominates MS in the tablet market as it is. And of course Google or Apple couldn't do the same to MS.
Go find me a motherboard or graphics card that don't have the logo. Go on, do it. I doubt you can.
Why? The tablet market is already saturated with devices that don't have the Windows logo.
What the hell. Not a few years ago restrictions like this were acknowledged as being bad. Now people can't rush fast enough to defend lock down like this, especially with Microsoft pushing it.
Yeah look at how the ipad has destroyed the world with its lockdown.
Re:"Freedom" (Score:4, Insightful)
It's hard enough that no one outside of people with access to high end rework labs and the ability to repair damaged PCBs and reball SoCs is going to be able to do it. So claiming that "it's possible" with that degree of difficulty and barrier to entry is at best a sad, sad joke.
Re:"Freedom" (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no requirement that you dominate the market to be guilty of antitrust violations. Agreements between companies to lock out other companies to this extent are going to be in violation of antitrust regulations. This isn't just an exclusivity agreement between the companies, this is an exclusivity agreement that also involves the end user and prevents access to the device by other companies.
If MS contracted them to build the devices that would be a completely different situation. That's well established and Apple, for one, has been doing that for decades. What isn't well established is the practice of withholding certification if the product is capable of running a competitors product.
Re:"Freedom" (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you seriously think that MS is going to let a vendor ship Windows on a device without their logo on it? Doubtful.
We've said that with PCs as well. Look where that went.
Yeah, which is precisely why Microsoft is doing their little patent protection racket against every Android vendor in the market. They want to weaken Android and raise the cost of using it so that the vendors give up.
Go do it. I asked you to go find me core system hardware that doesn't have the Windows logo on it.
Sure, it's causing bullshit lock down and walled gardens to spread.
MUST is overrated (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been known to piss on requirements in specifications from time to time because they subvert my interests or they have effects I believe to be more harmful than helpful.
All secure boot does is give the computer some assurance whatever it is handing off control to can be trusted.
There is no technical way for UEFI or anything else to enforce signed drivers in the form of modules loaded dynamically at runtime. If the kernel is blessed by the computer these "requirements" are simply empty words on a page that can and will be ignored with impunity.
Re:Organized trolling campaign on Slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup, we should just STFU and let the two biggest companies in consumer computing shut down all but each other as options in the market.
But none of how that works is defined, so chances are each vendor will have a different way of doing it and when that happens, the likelihood of automating the process goes way down (if it was ever possible) and the barriers to entry go way, way up.
Of course not. They want to undercut Android and drive it out of the market. Prices will probably jump back up (but the security won't be relaxed) if they succeed.
If Microsoft succeeds in their obvious goal of eliminating all other choices aside from Apple, nope, it won't be. Because there will be no choice.
Because a company with a powerful monopoly known for acting in anti-competitive manners is establishing requirements that make it extremely difficult, and in some cases impossible, for alternative software platforms to be used on these devices.
Sure, sure. I would too. But that's not what this hardware is being set up for. It's designed to keep a lid on you just as much as anything else.
Well I won't knowing that it's been deliberately crippled. I do buy "designed for windows N" hardware now because until this point it didn't guarantee that I would be locked out or forced to perform contortions to put whatever OS I wanted on it.
They make nice large laptops, no tablets or cellphones. But yeah, I can't wait until my choice in hardware is reduced to a tiny handful of companies because Microsoft has manipulated the rest of it into being exclusive to them. That's fucked up and BROKEN.
Gimme a fucking break. I'd buy a Windows 8 device... if it would let me do as I wished up to and including replacing Windows 8. But now I know that since I can't, no I won't. And I'll bitch that choices are being deliberately limited by an anti-competitive monopolist. To ignore the moves being made here is foolish in the extreme.
FIGHT HARD, O WHITE KNIGHT! MICROSOFT SHALL SURELY REWARD YE IN THE END!
Secure Boot is only for UEFI Executables (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm really confused by Matthew Garrett's assertion that secure boot creates problems for virtualbox, OS device drivers, and other kernel modules. UEFI secure boot only applies to UEFI executables (basically UEFI device drivers and bootloaders). Only the bootloader hands off control to the OS, UEFI secure boot's job is done. It's up to the OS bootloader to decide if it wants to check a signature on the OS. And from there, its up to the OS to decide if it wants to verify signature on other kernel modules, including drivers. If the Linux folks aren't worried about malicious device drivers acting as rootkits, they don't need to verify device drivers. It's just that simple.
And maybe if Matthew and the FOSS community are that concerned about standardized key formats for UEFI they should actually join the UEFI Forum. Red Hat and Canonical have certainly been invited to the table, but they instead choose to criticize from the outside rather than be part of the solution. Microsoft has gone out of their way to try to placate the FOSS folks here, at least on x86 (I agree that the situation on ARM is a bit different). MS will sign other bootloaders, if someone will submit one, allowing Linux folks to take partial advantage of UEFI secure boot. MS is requiring user-configurable trust anchors on x86, which is exactly what Red Hat and Canonical asked for.
I really don't understand Matthew here. He got what he wanted on x86. I can understand him not being happy with the requirements for ARM systems, but he should be ecstatic with Microsoft's new draft requirements for x86 systems.
Re:Windows is Oranges in this case (Score:4, Insightful)
So you think a consortium of vendors got together and asked Microsoft to create Windows 8, and make sure that it is the only OS that can run on their hardware and thereby reduce their market share potential?
Re:"Freedom" (Score:4, Insightful)
Easily. Where do you buy licenses for the ARM version of Windows 8?
They are, but how popular will they be if Microsoft starts subsidizing the tablets to undercut Android, while pressing the "it runs Windows 8 just like your desktop!" angle?
Hey, give them time. They're just getting started with their rampage.
Yeah, Windows owns 90% of the desktop market. And now you can get it on your tablet too!
The "world" is largely unaware of how computers function as a whole. But it's gotten people like you to come out and defend their spread.
While such alternates are available. Microsoft is working hard to ensure they cease to be.
Re:What this really affects (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Organized trolling campaign on Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
hell you got choices coming out your asses, so WTF are you bitching for? Vote with your wallet okay? But just because YOU don't like doesn't mean you get to tell ME or anyone else what device we should buy or what features it should have. If I was gonna buy one of these things, which I'm not BTW, I wanna try one of those $70 Android Indian pads the net has been buzzing about, but if I did and was actually gonna use this for real work I'd WANT it locked down, because if its one thing we've seen its that these things are giant targets for the malware guys!
First it's a matter of culture, which does and can effect every one of us. A culture where corporation control what you can or can't do with a computer is a culture detrimental to everyone. Second who has the keys? Locking your stuff up as long as you have a key is not problematic at all. What is is when the key is controlled solely by someone who is willing to sacrifice your interests and goals for the sake of their own.
This will only hasten their marginalization (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure they don't realize what they are doing... but they will in time. They (unlike apple) don't sell the hardware their software runs on. Therefore.. it's not under their control how many devices are in the market that can run an OS that is so locked down. At first there may be many... but those choices will taper off as sales of linux based devices will always be less expensive. That and people don't like windows on non desktop platforms and I seriously doubt they have done enough right with the next iteration of Windows to change that perception. So in the end.. this will resemble yet another failed Microsoft mobile platform and less like the next desktop OS for the future. In the mean time.. they will continue to shed 3rd party developers as this slow motion train wreck unfolds.
Re:"Freedom" (Score:2, Insightful)
Except this isn't hardware markers. This is an abusive monopoly that likes to bully around hardware makers. They have been told to stop repeatedly by multiple national governments and even have managed to be officially labeled as a monopoly by a court of law.
Hardware makers are just as much the victim here as anyone else. Always have been.