Yes to Windows 10, then no to Linux (Secure Boot 2.0 story)

windows 10 tuxedo

That is seems to be the question that prepares us Microsoft with its new version of Windows 10. And it seems that Microsoft is willing to end once and for all with the competition on the desktop. First it was announced that Microsoft will allow updating to Windows 10 for free even to those who have a pirated Windows and now this ...

Microsoft has approached open source software with some of its projects to get people to like it, it has also bet heavily on developer courses, Redmond travel giveaways, etc. Everything to overturn the deteriorated image of the company and give the big bell with Windows 10.

With Windows 8 and the famous UEFI Secure Boot, now it seems that in Windows 10 it will take another step in its obstacles to install other operating systems and even force manufacturers not to give the option to deactivate it as before. With the excuse of protecting the operating system from malware for its poor security work, now they seem to want to sneak up on this trap.

At least that's what Ars Technica reports, ensuring that the requirement to make Secure Boot optional will be eliminated and manufacturers will not be obliged to give this option to obtain the logo certified by Microsoft to include in their products. Luckily it seems that not all manufacturers will take this measure, but if some do, it is already a limitation for Linux users who want a dualboot.

But hey ... we have already talked a lot in the past about Secure Boot and many distros are already prepared for it, so the community that develops other free operating systems, not just Linux, will have to continue fighting hard against the impositions of some. So long waiting a replacement for the limited BIOS (on which the PCs depended to work with WIndows) and now that the expected UEFI arrives they impose the Secure Boot on us… it is the never ending story.

As Jerry Sanders well said (one of the founders of AMD) once, there are some monopolies capable of pressuring government institutions to enforce their laws and benefit from them. It seems that no one wants to stop an unfair act that does not advocate fair competition.

 


The content of the article adheres to our principles of editorial ethics. To report an error click here!.

8 comments, leave yours

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

*

*

  1. Responsible for the data: AB Internet Networks 2008 SL
  2. Purpose of the data: Control SPAM, comment management.
  3. Legitimation: Your consent
  4. Communication of the data: The data will not be communicated to third parties except by legal obligation.
  5. Data storage: Database hosted by Occentus Networks (EU)
  6. Rights: At any time you can limit, recover and delete your information.

  1.   englishbizarro said

    It is not that it obliges the manufacturers not to deactivate it, but rather that it is the manufacturers' option whether to allow it to be deactivated or not.

    Anyway, if we assume that manufacturers are lazy ...

  2.   FerGE said

    But, I imagine that if we have a computer with the boot "unlocked" we won't have any problem, right?

  3.   Fernando Corral Fritz said

    Please, it is not to be so alarmed, those of us who use a GNU / Linux distro will continue to do so even if Microsoft comes to leave us a free license at home. GNU / Linux already has its community and legions of users all over the world, we will continue that yes, being no more than 1 or 3% of the desktop market, but you have to understand that Microsoft is already absolutely positioned in this market and the advantage is considerable. For the rest there are many people who do not want to learn to use GNU / Linux and neither can we impose our OS by force, in short I am still optimistic and I still think that GNU / Linux will always be there for those who are fed up with viruses, formatting, errors everywhere, instability etc. To finish I think that the "free" thing will end up being a basic windows something like windows 7 starter in which you will not even be able to change the wallpaper on your desktop and for that it will tell you that they will have to pay for the version premium or a more released version etc, in the end I think that Windows users will end up more restricted than when they used pirated versions of it.

  4.   adrian said

    father don't worry, windows 10 nobody wants it, everyone will keep the 7

  5.   trishtam said

    In any case, the Windows OS will end up being hacked, for more baits or "upgrade" they put it. and for Linux to be accepted by the public, it should be less "complicated" for new users or that it flows a lot like windows (obviously when it allows it) in terms of drivers or things like that.

  6.   Leandro Paez said

    but please, who is the little monkey who wrote the news?
    It will no longer be mandatory to be able to deactivate it.
    But let's think that Windows 8 did impose that Secure Boot can be disabled. In other words, all the mothers in their UEFI allow that now, what manufacturer of mothers in their right mind would modify that again this time so that the secure boot cannot be disabled?
    It would be shooting yourself in the foot

    1.    Isaac PE said

      Hello,

      First of all, say that the "little monkey" is unnecessary. You can argue or disagree without insulting.

      The second, as I say in the article, I do not think it is a disaster, since there are distros that support it. The problem is for other distros or free operating systems that do not support it ... Microsoft is restricting freedom with these actions.

      Third, manufacturers are obviously not stupid. But Microsoft can exert a lot of pressure, be it politically or with a checkbook.

      And I give an example, when the AMD K8 microarchitecture was launched, many manufacturers announced that they would use it. In the end some did not and others still had a whole repertoire of Intel chips and only a few models with AMD. In this case the manufacturers were not stupid and did not intend to shoot themselves in the feet. But money and pressure triumphed, although Intel had monopoly complaints ...

      When behind something is Intel, Microsoft or Apple… you don't have to be so clear about things.

      And I repeat again in case someone finds it difficult to grasp it: I do not think that this greatly affects Linux or other systems such as FreeBSD, but it is a new impediment that is presented and that Microsoft not only does not affect it, but it benefits .

      In addition, it is stupid to think that this happens in another sector and yet it happens in this one. Can anyone imagine Mercedes pushing for gasoline to have a specific and optimized composition for its engines, leaving aside the rest of the motorcyclists? Not.

  7.   George said

    Personally, I prefer to use Linux, because the virus is very classic in this type of product, even if it has a free license, you have to buy antivirus that is not very cheap and do a lot of paperwork ṕso that they are not humping you, at this point many applications work well on Linux.