I give it a couple month before some hacker finds a crack or workaround that allows users of other operating systems to “spoof” the cryptographic keys and make secure boot think it’s actually loading Window’s 8
IMHO, anyone making the PC boards with this Secure Booting, they should be boycotted. Even Apple allows for Linux both under the former PPC and Intel platforms. I use to do multiple partitions in Apple but now using VMWare to run Linux.
Microsoft makes me sick, and I work as a MS systems engineer. They’re due to be smacked down, and I have a feeling both Win8 and Server 2012 are going to do that. People are not ready nor do they want touchscreen desktop OSes, and forcing it on them is not the way to go.
The idea of putting a touchscreen server OS on the market is absolutely retarded. MOST datacenters are lights out, meaning no personnel on the floor during business hours. Remote KVM solutions like those provided by Avocent are not prepared for touchscreen use and thus will cause a problem. Is Microsoft going to acquire some KVM solution and sell it as a market brand for people who want to use 2012? How about remote system access utilities like HP’s iLO, Dell’s iDRAC, or IBM’s APM? You’re talking about increasing bandwidth requirements, end-to-end touchscreen capabilities, and myriad other issues with these types of deployments.
I’ve already recommended to my leadership teams that we finish upgrading to 2008 and stay put until Microsoft either pulls their head out of their ass or a better alternative comes around. Messing with UEFI in such a way as to render a machine locked down to a specific OS goes against OS freedom.
Enjoy the PC you own, now.
In the future, you will only be able to rent.
I find it ironic that so-called “open-source” Linux has been used in the Mobile/Tablet world to pioneer the Secure Boot lock-down of the hardware you bought, and think you own.
I won’t buy any hardware that locks me into Windows. It’s my hardware I own it...
My gosh - the Linux community is the Republican Party! Who knew? :)
Linux is “clunky” and has limited application. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to use Linux in any serious application. About like using Com.....64.
Is it a mountain or a molehill?
I see the future and it doesn’t include a MS as big as today. They’re really under pressure. Cloud Drives are just a step on the road map to true Cloud OS. Windows for the PC is becoming stagnant ... how much more innovation can they come up with? Windows 8 out and out sucks ... the Metro interface is kind-of stupid. I immediately uninstalled Windows 8 and returned it to Best Buy saying it was a piece of junk.
The real money is going to be in small device OS’es, and Android is far a head of MS in that game, so is Apple’s IOS.
Linux is heading for a big jump in the next 3-8 years as Valve Inc is spearheading a Linux Gaming revolution. MS will even start losing console market share as Valve Inc grows.
The future is a bare bones OS that boots and OS from off the network.
rEFIt works great for OSX. They’ll come up with something similar for this nonsense by MS.
I *NEED* to run multiple operating systems. If MS prevents that, they become an enemy.
So - let’s see if I can say this right.
Will this signed booting thing - only apply to computers that come with Windows preinstalled? Like a Dell, or a Lenovo, or an HP or whatever?
What if you just buy a motherboard? Or a “bare-bones” rig?
Sure people are fond of breathing new life into old windoze systems by loading linux on them. But many, many other systems are purpose built for linux and have never had windoze on them - ever. Will the signing virus apply in this case?
As long as the Chinese make motherboards, you can bet on finding some that don’t implement Secure Boot. They don’t intend to be held hostage to Windows any more than we do. So, my future boxes may be Beige instead of Dell.
I ABSOLUTELY, WILL NOT even consider buying a computer that does not have dual boot capability.
The author of this article seems convinced that the Linux community is deficient because it has not joined together to pay Microsoft for the privilege of being allowed to operate. That sounds to me like a rather ridiculous suggestion. I would hate to see anybody pay even so much as a dollar to Redmond in this case. Rather, wait for the release of the machines and pay lawyers instead. I may not like them either, but at least that isn’t paying extortion money, and it benefits the community more as well.