Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows Technology

No Windows 8 Plot To Lock Out Linux 548

Posted by samzenpus
from the playing-nice dept.
First time accepted submitter Bucky24 writes "ZDNet's Ed Bott decided to contact major PC makers to find out the truth about Windows 8 SecureBoot. The responses are encouraging for those of us who run third party operating systems. Dell plans to have a BIOS switch to allow SecureBoot to be disabled, and HP assures us that they will allow consumers to make their own choice as to what operating system to run, though they have not given details as to how."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

No Windows 8 Plot To Lock Out Linux

Comments Filter:
  • At first at least. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    1. Embrace.

  • Ed Bott (Score:5, Informative)

    by bmo (77928) on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @09:01PM (#37929122)

    Ed Bott is nothing more than a Microsoft mouthpiece. Not going to RTFA and almost didn't RTFS because of his name. His hobbies are trolling and shilling for Microsoft.

    The only difference between him and Robert Enderle is that Robert is a more honest whore.

    --
    BMO

    • Re:Ed Bott (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hedwards (940851) on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @09:13PM (#37929222)

      He's probably technically correct that it isn't a plot to lock out Linux. In practice though, I'd be surprised if it didn't end up like ACPI early on, where MS' implementation was the only one that many vendors bothered with, opting not to fix bugs that MS had a workaround for.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by syousef (465911)

      His hobbies are trolling and shilling for Microsoft.

      It's not a hobby if you make your living that way.

    • Re:Ed Bott (Score:5, Informative)

      by izomiac (815208) on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @09:31PM (#37929400) Homepage
      I read the article and regret it. The author called Dell and HP "spokespersons" and asked about their company's plans. One non-decision-making employee says Dell is currently planning to provide an option, and a similar HP employee has no idea what SecureBoot is, but can confirm that HP is not participating in a conspiracy (the stated question apparently).

      So, after two phone calls and an e-mail, the author's fact-checking work is done, so the article moves on to mocking selected quotes by open source advocates. I'll try to remember Ed Bott's name, as he obviously has such high journalistic standards.
      • by bmo (77928)

        There is at least one person who thinks highly of Ed Bott, however.

        The net effect of that big brainwashing effort is that some of the more credulous and less informed people now distrust a very smart analyst like Rob Enderle, very smart journalists like Maureen O'Gara and Dan Lyons, or a very smart author like Ed Bott, only because they comment on certain issues with greater sanity than Groklaw.

        - Florian Mueller

        *spit*

        --
        BMO

      • Yep... you get used to glazing past anything with Ed Bott's tagline in it. He's notorious for being a better Microsoft mouthpiece than Microsoft's PR department.

        I just have a hard time deciding if it's because he loves Microsoft that damned much, or if he's just doing it to generate eyeballs and clicks.

    • Re:Ed Bott (Score:4, Informative)

      by sortius_nod (1080919) on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @10:12PM (#37929746) Homepage

      anything on ZDNet is going to be a Microsoft shill piece.

    • by poetmatt (793785)

      no worries. the EFF has picked up on the article's FUD, among others. The funny thing is that moving forward with secureboot in ways that are undocumented/lock out linux would bring so many lawsuits to microsoft that even the lawyers will be falling over themselves to sue them. It would quite literally give novell so much ammunition it's not even funny.

      • Quick fix from Microsoft:

        "In response to criticism from the US government and the open source community, our secure boot loader will now allow users to run Linux! You will, of course, be running in a hyperviser to ensure that you do not attempt to access the Windows partition or overwrite the bootloader, which is necessary for your security!"

        The purpose here is to ensure that the user cannot modify Windows, and the purpose of that is to ensure that DRM systems become effective (i.e. because if you ca
    • by Zancarius (414244)

      His hobbies are trolling and shilling for Microsoft.

      I agree. I've long stopped reading anything of his simply because it's just regurgitated press releases from Redmond.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by The Askylist (2488908)
      My only question is - how can booting into Windows version anything be called "secure boot"?

      Surely the term "locked-in boot" is more accurate?

  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @09:05PM (#37929158) Journal
    While nice, if true, to hear that OEMs will be doing (part of) what people would like to see(specifically, having an option to disable 'secure boot' is better than nothing; but what you really want is the option to do a keyfill with trusted keys of your choice: signed boot components make good sense, it's just not being able to choose who is trusted to sign them that is an issue); this article could hardly be any smarmier or less informative.

    "In response to the FUD campaign of the freetards, I asked some PR people. Dell said 'yes', HP emitted word salad, AMI said that they would do whatever their customers felt like. Case Solved!" If it weren't for the smirking invective, the whole thing could have been boiled down to a single paragraph(or, heaven forfend, bulked out with technical information...)
    • by hedwards (940851) on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @09:15PM (#37929252)

      At that point, you might as well ditch it completely and just have a special boot chip that can be made writable via jumper and most of the time set to read only.
      It would solve the problem without the need for such a scary possibility as the vendor being able to lock you out of your OS of choice.

      • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @09:22PM (#37929310) Journal
        As best I can tell, EFI was what happened when somebody looked upon the BIOS, saw that it sucked compared to the OS, and decided that(rather than building a new firmware aimed at getting into the OS as simply and quickly as possible) they would build a BIOS large enough to possess every vice of an operating system and leave implementation to the capable hands of the PC OEMs, whose dedication to software quality is legendar...
        • by Microlith (54737)

          EFI is what happens when Intel (rightly) concludes that switching to a new architecture, IA64, would allow them to abandon all the problems of x86 and thus eliminate the then 20 year old BIOS in favor of something more capable. It is also what happens when Intel goes hugely NIH and decides to create something almost, but not quite, like OpenFirmware.

          large enough to possess every vice of an operating system and leave implementation to the capable hands of the PC OEMs, whose dedication to software quality is

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by wzinc (612701)
        I think the issue is n00bs will try Linux for the first time, fail, and think it's no good. Ubuntu, etc will have to plaster "turn-off SecureBoot" all over their site. Of course, like most BIOSes, it will be poorly translated, and you'll have to hunt all over for the right setting. People are always saying how closed Apple is on this site, but they specifically wrote a BIOS emulator so you could run Win/Linux on a Mac. Apple will be the most open hardware maker after this!
        • by znerk (1162519)

          Ubuntu, etc will have to plaster "turn-off SecureBoot" all over their site.

          ... which Microsoft can then point at as an obvious indication that *nix is evil and/or insecure.

  • by robot256 (1635039) on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @09:06PM (#37929162)

    After all, when you're simply pushing commodity hardware with no particular value added, adding "can run non-Windows OS" is just another bullet-point feature you can add to your list, and one that even normal people will look for "just in case" they want to try out this Linux thing or whatever. What's the point in locking yourself in if there isn't anything special about the hardware in the first place? Even Apple doesn't limit what its hardware can run, only what its OS will run on.

    Besides, there are plenty of enterprise customers running Linux servers and workstations, so making that an option would just add uncertainty to the supply chain and make those customers uncomfortable.

    • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @09:23PM (#37929324)

      even normal people will look for "just in case" they want to try out this Linux thing or whatever

      The last time I dealt with a "normal person" buying a computer, the conversation went like this:

      Me: "...this has 2 gigabytes of ram, which should last you a few years."
      Her: "It's so ugly! What about that one, that one looks prettier!"
      Me: "That one has a lower end processor and less memory. Are you sure you want something that is less capable?"
      Her: "Look they are letting me pick the color!"

      Non-technical people are just that: non-technical. Computer makers and especially Apple know exactly how to take advantage of such people, which is what "secure boot" is all about. This is about ensuring that customers can be locked into DRM-laden platforms, plain and simple. Dell will probably have the option described in TFA...in their high end workstations, that are prohibitively priced, with the option disabled for "consumer" systems. My guess is that this will not happen in the first generation of systems with "secure boot," but more likely in the second or third generation, when more "strategic" platforms are deployed out of the box for which DRM is a key part of the control.

      • by Velex (120469)

        Her: "Look they are letting me pick the color!"

        My case is transparent purple, you insensitive clod. Seriously, going on 12 years, I've had a matching purple power strip and case. Otoh, when I first built my system it was and AMD Thunderbird with a Voodoo 5 Video card. It was pretty kick-ass at the time. These days I have tons of ram, tons of processor, tons of everything, and the best part is, I still have a matching purple case and purple power strip!

        Boys.. you just don't get it. Girls.. you don't get it either. I guess I don't know what my po

      • by Ltap (1572175)
        Mod parent up. The ability to boot a different OS will become a feature for "serious users" that costs thousands of dollars. The days of installing Linux on older desktop systems for hobby purposes will be over unless someone cracks this stuff.
      • Me: "...this has 2 gigabytes of ram, which should last you a few years."

        My preference would be for RAM that lasts longer that a few years...

    • I have personally seen a gril going and asking the salesman : which of these laptops are available in pink After that she bought the one with the least weight among the pink ones She did not check the config even once
      • by Gerald (9696) on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @10:27PM (#37929856) Homepage

        I'm confused. Are we supposed to go "tsk tsk" and be dismissive or be impressed that she had clear and concise specs which the vendor was able to meet?

      • by mug funky (910186)

        in a dept store, the laptops all have the same features, save for some corner cases.

        there's no shame in "just wanting something to browse on, and maybe some other stuff". if that's what you want, then every machine in the store is good enough.

        given that, why on earth wouldn't you choose the prettiest, lightest, cheapest one (though i'd include battery life as well, because using these things in bed with the power plugged in causes awful things to happen to the power jack).

        my wife's getting an iPad 2.0. sh

      • by kimvette (919543)

        For all you know, she could be a hardcore geek, and just wanted a cheap notebook she doesn't care about to surf the web at Starbucks.

        Not all notebooks have to be powerful enough for realtime 3D modeling and nuclear reaction simulations. :-)

      • by perpenso (1613749) on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @11:26PM (#37930240)

        I have personally seen a gril going and asking the salesman : which of these laptops are available in pink After that she bought the one with the least weight among the pink ones She did not check the config even once

        And if she is just going to browse the web, maybe use an email client (more likely web based email) and maybe run the bundled word processor what is the problem? I think we are long past the point where even the most modest computer at the local retailer has performance far beyond the needs of casual users. Hell, a tablet plus a bluetooth keyboard is probably an option for many such users.

    • by jejones (115979)

      "What's the point in locking yourself in if there isn't anything special about the hardware in the first place?"

      Don't you remember Microsoft's campaign against "naked PCs" [zdnet.co.uk] (i.e. computers sold without an operating system)? I'm sure that we'll see a similar campaign for OEM systems and motherboards set up to preclude installing a non-MS operating system.

    • Normal people would not care if the system could run Linux. They don't know how to use Linux, they probably don't even know what it is.

      In any case, if the computers found in retail establishments are locked down to run only Windows it hardly matters. Motherboard manufacturers like ASUS, Gigabtye, MSI, etc will surely offer motherboards that are Linux friendly. They already produce motherboards and other products targeting the hobbyist market. Don't want to screw together your own computer? Well there hav
  • by tchuladdiass (174342) on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @09:06PM (#37929164) Homepage

    I want to leave secure boot enabled, but put me in charge of the keys. That is, I want to load my own public keys into the system (through a secure channel, such as a bios screen or flipping a physical switch, for example).

    • You crazy consumer, you. Next you'll be wanting to know your TPM's private endorsement key.
  • by MrKevvy (85565) on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @09:11PM (#37929200)

    They were successfully sued (albeit more of a slap on the wrist) for antitrust violations simply for bundling a browser with an operating system.

    Colluding with hardware manufacturers to actually lock out rival operating systems making them an enforced monopoly is several orders of magnitude more severe. Why would they risk that when other operating systems have such a tiny market share anyways? The possible penalties are not worth it for a small increase.

    • by hedwards (940851)

      The difference is that MS is requiring secure boot for a special logo, but not telling manufacturers whether or not to allow other oses to be installed. In practice, I wouldn't be surprised if some vendors opted not to allow people to turn it off or provide alternate keys.

    • by walterbyrd (182728) on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @09:22PM (#37929306)

      MS would just say that the hw makers decided to do it. Besides, MS never gets more than a slap on the wrist.

      Why would MS do this? The same reasons that MS funded the scox-scam, and bribed officials in the OOXML scam.

      • by gman003 (1693318)

        Besides, MS never gets more than a slap on the wrist.

        Not in the US, but the European Union is pretty good at it. Back in 2008 they fined the company over 10% their annual revenue, just for bundling Windows Media Player.

    • I may be way off base here, but though Microsoft was declared to be an illegal monopoly, wasn't their punishment settlement basically an agreement that gave them more control and profit than they had before? I'd have to go back and read through the documentation. That being the case, wouldn't it be in Microsoft's best interest to get in trouble again. Either way, it would be 10+ years before the case went to trial and by that time it would be the defacto standard .

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @09:13PM (#37929218)

    The requirement to disable Secureboot in order to run a non-Windows OS will imply that the other OS is less secure. Just another way for M$ to try and make the hardware pseudo-proprietary. This is not much different than the 'Windows Key'. Ask yourself, Is this an attempt to incorrectly solve a problem that doesn't exist or just another FUD tactic from a behemoth corporation?

  • by liquidweaver (1988660) on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @09:13PM (#37929220)
    Disabling secure boot is not a solution - it's crippling the security, needlessly. I'd love to hear my Dell rep explain to me on my next round of server purchases that I cannot use a fantastic feature to protect the security of my linux servers because they were too lazy/corrupt to enable me to use my own platform key. I will buy from the vendor who allows my to set the PK, and will not from those who refuse. Period.
    • I get the feeling that, come your next server RFP, your HP and Dell sales reps are going to ask you which secure boot version you want - Windows, ESXi, RedHat, or SuSE (maybe, but only because Intel has a hard-on for it as their own preferred server distro). You really won't have any other alternative.

      'course, that's going to limit the flexibility, and require you to buy a new server (or buy some sort of firmware/EFI flash utility) whenever you put another OS on it. Then again, considering that you'll be bu

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        I get the feeling that, come your next server RFP, your HP and Dell sales reps are going to ask you which secure boot version you want - Windows, ESXi, RedHat, or SuSE (maybe, but only because Intel has a hard-on for it as their own preferred server distro). You really won't have any other alternative.

        I doubt it, there are too many businesses that need to be able to run whatever they want on their servers. Right now businesses want more flexibility, not less.

        What you can bet on, though, is that you will never be allowed to use any of those servers to play movies, music, or video games. The split between "consumer" systems and "enterprise" systems is going to be enforced with secure boot. Consumers will not be able to install their own OSes, or if they do disable or modify secure boot, they will p

        • by Bengie (1121981)

          ROFL. You must be new to IT.

          Booting from the Network, boot up memtest, booting up WinPE, booting up Spin Rite... All are not signed OSs.

          The day IT can't use their tools on the computers is the day billions of dollars of computer orders will suddenly stop going to OEMs.

          So, you are absolutely sure that OEMs are going to abandon enterprise customers because they didn't want to pay an extra $0.01 per computer to allow an option to disable secure boot? Think about that for a bit.

          In other news, vaccinations don't

  • Duh (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bigstrat2003 (1058574)
    There's never been any real reason to believe that locking down of this feature would happen, apart from FUD. This whole thing is a tempest in a teapot, and it's frankly sad to see how many members of the community are willing to believe that "on by default" necessarily means "unable to turn off".
    • Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sasayaki (1096761) on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @09:17PM (#37929272)

      For now.

      Features like this tend to creep their way in slowly.

      - It's something you can turn on.
      - It's on by default, but you can turn it off easily.
      - It's on by default and you need a CS degree to turn it off.
      - It can only be turned off by hacking your system.
      - It can only be turned off by hacking your system, and this is illegal to do.

      • by Microlith (54737)

        Damnit. Posting to clear bad mod :(

      • by exomondo (1725132)

        For now.

        Features like this tend to creep their way in slowly.

        - It's something you can turn on.
        - It's on by default, but you can turn it off easily.
        - It's on by default and you need a CS degree to turn it off.
        - It can only be turned off by hacking your system.
        - It can only be turned off by hacking your system, and this is illegal to do.

        out of interest, where has such a thing followed that progression?

        • Gaming consoles for starters. Used to be you could mod the unholy crap out of 'em, mod others' boxes, and nobody would care.

          Do it now and you're screwed for most online uses of the device. Pass it around, and you're under arrest.

          • by exomondo (1725132)

            Gaming consoles for starters. Used to be you could mod the unholy crap out of 'em, mod others' boxes, and nobody would care.

            Do it now and you're screwed for most online uses of the device. Pass it around, and you're under arrest.

            Yeah but was never something you could just flip a documented switch to turn on/off, unlike Secureboot or any other BIOS features.

      • CS degree? try MS CERT to trun on boot os MS old or IT CERT / TECH SCHOOL / IT license to trun on boot Linux.

        any ways windows lock in with app store lock in will be a MAJOR Anti trust issue.

        Also there are industrial systems ruining old software / hardware that will be need to be on there own and I don't think people will like having to be locked into coding for what even UI MS wants to force on you as part of there locked down app store for your system that is running industrial systems.

        What about nuclear p

    • >There's never been any real reason to believe that locking down of this feature would happen, apart from FUD.

      This is untrue. An OEM can control whether or not the purchaser can control the keys and trust list on the hardware they sell. There is nothing about secure boot that forces the OEM to take one action or another. Locking down of the feature might well happen on some platforms. Check before you buy.

      • The fact that it is possible for something to occur is not a reason to believe that it will occur. It's possible that I'll take horrible offense to one of your posts, engage in some drawn-out process to hunt you down in real life, and murder you brutally. You'd be a fool to spend even a moment's thought worrying about it, however, because such an event is exceptionally unlikely.
      • by exomondo (1725132)

        >There's never been any real reason to believe that locking down of this feature would happen, apart from FUD.

        This is untrue. An OEM can control whether or not the purchaser can control the keys and trust list on the hardware they sell. There is nothing about secure boot that forces the OEM to take one action or another. Locking down of the feature might well happen on some platforms. Check before you buy.

        An OEM can completely lock you out of the BIOS too, this is no different.

    • Or they're just making DAMN SURE it won't by making everyone aware of the possibility.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      There's never been any real reason to believe that locking down of this feature would happen, apart from FUD

      Yeah, because we never saw a company try to pull something like that...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox [wikipedia.org]
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playstation_3 [wikipedia.org]
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_wii [wikipedia.org]

      Let us not forget that media consumption is widely considered to be a strategic area for personal computer vendors to move into. We are going to be seeing more and more entertainment moving to PCs, and hardware and software makers can make their systems more competitive in the entertainment marketplace by lock

      • by clarkn0va (807617)

        hardware and software makers can make their systems more competitive in the entertainment marketplace by locking down their products.

        O the irony of that statement! And yet I concede that in this twisted world you are indeed correct.

  • by unity100 (970058) on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @09:23PM (#37929316) Homepage Journal
    If it was something that was really locking linux out in an apparent fashion, matter could be taken into courts.

    But now customer is not prevented from doing it - but, this time will need to be able to get into bios, turn it off, and only after that install linux.

    as you can readily agree, vast majority of computer users would not even know what 'bios' was. so, if a non-tech person from idaho was recommended linux, and got ahold of a cd and attempted to install it ............ go figure.

    This situation will make it slower for linux proliferation in mainstream, due to the tech aptitude threshold. And conveniently too - you cant argue against it because if someone knows what a bios is and what is the setting for allowing other oses, s/he can do it. if not, s/he can not. so convenient.
  • As if SecureBoot needs to be off for windows 7 to boot then OEM will be just about forced to have it off or at the very least on the business line.

    Even then for home use let's see windows 8 metro ui may be a no go for
    *metro app only in metro ui, so no steam, no iTunes, and other apps in metro mode.
    *app store lock in and censorship for metro apps.
    *no multitasking as it is now in metro mode.

    I think people will go back to 7 or say 7 is fine.

    • by tepples (727027)

      As if SecureBoot needs to be off for windows 7 to boot

      Unless Microsoft releases a service pack that adds UEFI Secure Boot support to Windows 7.

      *metro app only in metro ui, so no steam, no iTunes, and other apps in metro mode.

      Then press the Windows key to bring up the desktop.

  • it is really just a plot to keep my reverse-Hackintosh from coming to market. I cannot see how we will ever have an inexpensive, stand-alone Mac running Windows 8 (ie., free from Bootcamp, VMWare or Parallels) Well played, Microsoft.
  • Dell plans to have a BIOS switch to allow SecureBoot to be disabled,

    Can you please remind me again... what percentage of the average user population knows how to change a BIOS switch?

    Currently they can just pop in their knoppix CD or try Ubuntu with a Live CD; No expertise regarding BIOS settings required (normally).

    What we have here is an anti-competitive practice being endorsed by Microsoft in the form of a logo validating "Secure" boot.

    This is a low blow, and a shoddy attempt to ward away other

    • by Bengie (1121981)

      "Currently they can just pop in their knoppix CD or try Ubuntu with a Live CD; No expertise regarding BIOS settings required (normally)."
      Currently they can just run their favorite malware and screw their computer; No expertise regarding BIOS settings required (normally)

      I use to be able to run any config I wanted, but now they have all of these "users" and stuff to help keep my machine more secure. Passwords, Users, encryption, tokens, all of this stuff is just trying to make things more confusing. I should

    • by gregrah (1605707)
      This just isn't a concern for me.

      Installing and configuring Linux is difficult. Some slashdot readers will disagree with me, but as CS degree-holder and Linux user who has spent hundreds of hours troubleshooting fresh Linux installations on my own machines (and in several cases reverting back to windows because of some deal-breaker hardware incompatibility issue), I can confidently say that I would NEVER recommend to any of my family members that they attempt to install Linux on their own.

      In othe
  • we are at least a year away from 8 being released. plans change and they might change their minds. it would be pref-able that NO motherboard had this option to start with.

  • Even if it can be disabled, great FUD argument is that all which disables it is UNSAFE!

    It's an ongoing turf war.

  • self-described (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Wednesday November 02, 2011 @10:03PM (#37929670) Homepage Journal

    From the comments at the ZD story:

    Protecting 99% of users is more important than catering to the whims of a whiny 1%.

    Where have we heard that before?

    Can you believe Microsoft is using the language of Occupy Wall Street to try to position itself as the "masses" fighting the "whiny 1%" of people who prefer OSS?

    ZDNet, Ed Bott, and some Microsoft executives all need to burn in hell.

  • What about license agreement? I remember the whole "Microsoft Tax" issue a few years back, where it was basically determined that if you purchased a computer and did not approve the license, you could get a refund on the operating system software (i.e., Windows).

    If I purchase a computer and have no plans to dual-boot Windows and Linux, how is this not forcing an illegal tie-in on the consumer? In that I literally cannot opt out of using a Microsoft product? Didn't they -just- have huge lawsuits about this a

  • I don't see why linux can't adapt to these boot protection schemes. Self-signed or vendor signed, as long as there's a way to import your key information, what's the issue? Frankly, code signing is a good thing, especially if you can perform it from the ground up.

    I understand the anxiety, here, especially given that Sinofsky is not a popular figure and nobody wants to trust any initiative he backs. That having been said, MS (and partners) would be opening themselves up to swift antitrust action again if th

  • The solution is obvious: allow installation of your own root certificate. This is supposed to be for security, not vendor lock-in. Without this option, I simply don't believe their intent.
  • Of course if some big tech corps, that have lived through a decade and more of Microsoft subject to restrictions for abusing its PC monopoly, tell some journalist that they're not going to help Microsoft compete unfairly with Linux then they must be telling the truth.

    Journalists are stupid. Especially when they expect the rest of us to be as gullible as they are for a living.

  • The story leaked and PC manufacturers became concerned over public outcry and lost sales. I am not naive enough to believe that the thoughts of a locked down boot loader never was given any serious consideration by MS and the hardware manufacturers.
  • This is such a ridiculous conspiracy that only Microsoft haters could have roused up so much in people. Microsoft doesn't have the control over PC manufacturers as people seem to think based on all of this nonsense. And manufacturers aren't idiots; they know that they sell plenty of hardware to corporations, networking/hosting companies, research labs, etc, and they know that those clients need machines which can run alternative operating systems without all of this implied dicking around.

    What I think it

Truth is free, but information costs.

Working...