How will UEFI Secure Boot affect CrunchBang?

Neil · 2012-06-01 00:13:37

Apparently Fedora has a plan in place to allow new computer hardware to boot Fedora:

http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html

I'm having a hard time understanding what this will mean for distobutions such as CrunchBang, but my feeling is that this is completely unacceptable. It's disappointing that even Redhat doesn't seem to have the influence to save their market.

Redhat is a billion dollar company with a large market share in the server market, therefore has a lot of influence on hardware manufacturers (a lot of server manufacturers also make laptops and desktops), therefore Redhat should have used its influence to force a solution that would be acceptable to the FOSS world.

I will NEVER buy any hardware where 'secure boot' cannot be FULLY DISABLED (either by a BIOS option or by flashing a custom BIOS or with a hardware dip-switch) and if that means I will be stuck with the hardware I'm currently using...then so be it. Most, if not all, the hardware I'm currently using is 4-10 years old, but I may just have to keep it alive for another 10 years to avoid caving in to Microsoft.

What's your take on this situation?

VastOne · 2012-06-01 01:02:17

I build my own and always will and have complete control over what I use.

Neil · 2012-06-01 02:01:01

I generally build desktop machines also, but it is nearly impossible to build your own laptop.:D

Plus, if I understand correctly, bare motherboards will have this UEFI stuff built into the BIOS, although one should be able to disable it in a custom build.

I just can't believe the influence that Microsoft has over hardware manufacturers!

VastOne · 2012-06-01 02:03:48

Just like every other folly Microsoft has 'invented', there will be a genius patch of code that will break the UEFI ...

The more things change, the more they remain the same... Just so you know, Intel is not a whole lit different.

Vansgo · 2012-06-01 02:23:42

Some old hardware is still good hardware with many parts available to keep them going.

el_koraco · 2012-06-01 06:51:46

Neil wrote:

I'm having a hard time understanding what this will mean for distobutions such as CrunchBang, but my feeling is that this is completely unacceptable. It's disappointing that even Redhat doesn't seem to have the influence to save their market.

Microsoft's spec says x86 machines that get Windows stickers must have secure boot enabled, but must also offer a firmware option to disable it. There's little point to secure boot on a Linux machine, so if you're not dual booting, or don't go around getting your computer hijacked, there's little to worry about. Machines that don't come with Windows will probably not have secure boot, and ARM devices aren't allowed to let the user disable secure boot, but who's gonna buy a Windows ARM machine in their right minds.

This is just a workaround to have Fedora (and other distros) install to a secure boot environment out of the box, with five clicks.

A bigger problem is UEFI boot in general. Setting a computer to boot in UEFI mode is tricky. Luckily, most computers have a BIOS emulation mode, so no problems there either.

Doomicide · 2012-06-01 08:13:14

I just read up on the secure boot stuff and I can hardly contain my rage. I'm at the library right now, so I can't just take this out on some innocent object...

Edited by VastOne

We try not to make too many rules here; the #! community mostly self-govern themselves without our interference. This is what makes our forums popular. The only rule we really enforce is the "family-friendly" policy - i.e. no profanity or anything likely to discriminate or offend.
bobobex

Edited by Doomicide:
Okay I'll try and avoid the "f-word" in future post.

Last edited by Doomicide (2012-06-01 15:52:08)

gutterslob · 2012-06-01 13:37:39

el_koraco wrote:

A bigger problem is UEFI boot in general. Setting a computer to boot in UEFI mode is tricky. Luckily, most computers have a BIOS emulation mode, so no problems there either.

This is one reason I want Google's Chrome OS to gain traction. Sure, it's a useless browser kiosk for you and me, but if Google gets enough support, it'll at least convince some OEMs to look at the Coreboot + U-Boot stack as an alternative.

el_koraco · 2012-06-01 15:31:19

That would be sweet. Imagine, the firmware loading the kernel straight up. To be fair though, UEFI offers some added benefits. As an example, my HP can upgrade the firmware from within UEFI, you just need to put the new image on a stick. This is a lot easier than having to keep either Windows on or boot a FreeDOS live image, as is the case with most BIOS implementations. UEFI also has extensive self-repair tools, which are not available in the tiny space usually reserved for BIOS. There is an option to have the UEFI boot manager boot the kernel directly as well. Three problems:

a) the OEM implementation is not standardized, they muck about in so many different ways - take Apple and their EFI 1 and EFI 2 mash-up, which forces you to rely on third party BIOS emulators to boot stuff other than OSX and Windows in Boot Camp.

b) Linux distros themselves. A banal example is the debian installer. You can boot Debian in UEFI mode quite easily, but you can't set it up in the installer. There's some chrooting and/or messing with firmware after an install to do.

a) and b) will sort themselves out once Windows has full UEFI support - only 64 bit WIndows 7 can boot UEFI, and only with GPT, so OEM's are just playing it safe, and leaving BIOS emulation as the norm. There's no incentive for distros to change that, but you run into problems if you buy a machine from an OEM that has moved a lot of the infrastructure to UEFI (Lenovo is one of them, especially with Thinkpads, which all come with 64 bit Windows, so they don't give a N*cole K*dman). But the biggest problem is:

c) L*onel R*th*e FSF will find a way to make Grub's GPLv3 requirements the biggest hurdle to cross, in their quest for more patent tro... liberating the users! Well, maybe extlinux will get the love it deserves.

Last edited by el_koraco (2012-06-02 11:10:33)

Sector11 · 2012-06-02 01:19:30

Funny how one moderator does his job...

Edited by VastOne
We try not to make too many rules here; the #! community mostly self-govern themselves without our interference. This is what makes our forums popular. The only rule we really enforce is the "family-friendly" policy - i.e. no profanity or anything likely to discriminate or offend.
bobobex

While other mods just carry on using profanity.
Is this or is this not a "family friendly" channel?

Last edited by Sector11 (2012-06-02 01:19:56)

pvsage · 2012-06-02 04:46:42

I think SR-11 may be looking at me... hmm Or possibly snowpine or rhowaldt.

mynis01 · 2012-06-02 05:06:05

There's people installing Debian on phones that had the bootloaders locked by OEMs, even people installing android on M$ devices that had locked bootloaders. Even if it becomes a hurdle for novice linux users, someone will find a way to reverse engineer the problem. And a lot of OEMs like Dell actually make a lot of money selling enterprise equipment that runs Linux, so overall I think everyone is just going on FUD with this one. Speculating about it is kinda pointless for right now.
Linus Torvalds: Secure Boot Is Good

snowpine · 2012-06-02 05:13:36

pvsage wrote:

I think SR-11 may be looking at me... Or possibly snowpine or rhowaldt.

Who me?
cool

rhowaldt · 2012-06-02 10:22:30

it can't be me. it just can't.

el_koraco · 2012-06-02 11:09:45

Sector is right, it was me who got a little trigger happy. Sorry about that, I hadn't slept well yesterday. Editing...

rhowaldt · 2012-06-02 11:29:07

^ thanks for that el koraco.

Sector11 · 2012-06-02 15:35:30

To help get this thread back on topic: CrunchBang Forums - keeping it friendly and helpful.

rhowaldt · 2012-06-02 16:36:44

^ cool, nice.

somehow have something good to say about UEFI? i mean, come on, it can't be all bad, can it? smile

pidsley · 2012-06-02 20:33:02

[never mind]

Last edited by pidsley (2012-06-02 21:09:14)

VastOne · 2012-06-02 21:06:38

^ See OP's first post... smile

CrunchBang Linux

SEARCH

#1 2012-06-01 00:13:37

How will UEFI Secure Boot affect CrunchBang?

#2 2012-06-01 01:02:17

Re: How will UEFI Secure Boot affect CrunchBang?

#3 2012-06-01 02:01:01

Re: How will UEFI Secure Boot affect CrunchBang?

#4 2012-06-01 02:03:48

Re: How will UEFI Secure Boot affect CrunchBang?

#5 2012-06-01 02:23:42

Re: How will UEFI Secure Boot affect CrunchBang?

#6 2012-06-01 06:51:46

Re: How will UEFI Secure Boot affect CrunchBang?

#7 2012-06-01 08:13:14

Re: How will UEFI Secure Boot affect CrunchBang?

#8 2012-06-01 13:37:39

Re: How will UEFI Secure Boot affect CrunchBang?

#9 2012-06-01 15:31:19

Re: How will UEFI Secure Boot affect CrunchBang?

#10 2012-06-02 01:19:30

Re: How will UEFI Secure Boot affect CrunchBang?

#11 2012-06-02 04:46:42

Re: How will UEFI Secure Boot affect CrunchBang?

#12 2012-06-02 05:06:05

Re: How will UEFI Secure Boot affect CrunchBang?

#13 2012-06-02 05:13:36

Re: How will UEFI Secure Boot affect CrunchBang?

#14 2012-06-02 10:22:30

Re: How will UEFI Secure Boot affect CrunchBang?

#15 2012-06-02 11:09:45

Re: How will UEFI Secure Boot affect CrunchBang?

#16 2012-06-02 11:29:07

Re: How will UEFI Secure Boot affect CrunchBang?

#17 2012-06-02 15:35:30

Re: How will UEFI Secure Boot affect CrunchBang?

#18 2012-06-02 16:36:44

Re: How will UEFI Secure Boot affect CrunchBang?

#19 2012-06-02 20:33:02

Re: How will UEFI Secure Boot affect CrunchBang?

#20 2012-06-02 21:06:38

Re: How will UEFI Secure Boot affect CrunchBang?

Board footer