[Discuss] Fighting UEFI

[richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)]

On 7/28/2012 10:39 PM, Guy Gold wrote:
> It is pretty safe to say, that, Mac's aside, the vast majority of
> systems that are running Linux, shipped with Windows on them when
> leaving the OEM factory.

So what?  Some computers that ship with Windows are either limited with 
Linux or don't work at all.  This isn't my opinion.  It's a fact.

> If,
> just for imagination, Secure boot was 100% tightly enforced, with no
> option for changing  the key as Mr. Anderson pointed, 10 years ago,
> how many of this list members would have not experienced with Linux ?

Almost every commercial UNIX vendor has engaged in some form of hardware 
locking.  Sun.  IBM.  HP.  Data-General.  SGI.  Digital.  NCR.  Unisys. 
  Apple.  And a bunch of names and acronyms that most of you have never 
heard of.  They all made hardware that runs their own particular flavor 
of UNIX and won't run any other operating systems.  They've been doing 
it for over 30 years.

MINIX was written in spite of UNIX vendor hardware locking.  If the IBM 
PC and PC/AT micros were locked like that then MINIX would have been 
written for the Motorola 68k, maybe for the Atari ST.  Linux would have 
followed suit.  If such a lockdown came ten years ago then Transmeta or 
PowerPC could have become the primary Linux architecture.  Either way 
we'd still have the Linux opportunities.  They'd just be on hardware 
other than Intel x86.

The fuss about UEFI Secure Boot is nothing but Microsoft-hating FUD and 
I stand by my statements.  Secure Boot is a boon to consumers who just 
want their appliances to work.  It's a non-issue for the rest who 
wouldn't buy appliances in the first place.  And if you are in the 
second group and buy an appliance anyway then it's your own damned fault.

-- 
Rich P.