Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Linux Foundation is temporarily supporting a Microsoft security policy to ensure Linux isn’t blocked from running on PCs installed with Windows 8. The Foundation plans to obtain a Microsoft key to sign a pre-bootloader from core Linux kernel maintainer James Bottomley. Together, the key and pre-bootloader will allow users to start up and run Linux as an authorised piece of software on Windows 8 PCs – it would otherwise have been barred by the machine as potential malware.
This is the kind of crap that pisses me off from Microsoft. If I buy a computer, it is mine and I should be able to put whatever OS I damn want to put in it. It shouldn't matter that it came with Windows 8, or that it has an ARM or x86 based CPU. I shouldn't have to use any stop-gag measures to get it running. Die hard Linux users won't have a problem navigating around UEFI, but it will discourage your average Joe from trying it for the first time. I can imagine the shock when they're told that they have to disable a "security" feature in order to use Linux.
This doesn't effect Linux using VirtualBox or VMWare on Windows 8 does it?
This should have no effect whatsoever on VM's. AFAIK, the Secureboot requirement applies only to hardware manufacturers shipping their computers with a OEM version of Windows 8.
This is the kind of crap that pisses me off from Microsoft. If I buy a computer, it is mine and I should be able to put whatever OS I damn want to put in it. It shouldn't matter that it came with Windows 8, or that it has an ARM or x86 based CPU. I shouldn't have to use any stop-gag measures to get it running. Die hard Linux users won't have a problem navigating around UEFI, but it will discourage your average Joe from trying it for the first time. I can imagine the shock when they're told that they have to disable a "security" feature in order to use Linux.
Why isn't it also the fault of the manufacturers of the computers designing and implementing this feature?
The diehard Linux users, does anyone really care about them?
Linux comprises 5% of the installed OS market, and of that 5% how many actually bought it?
Why isn't it also the fault of the manufacturers of the computers designing and implementing this feature?
Because MS is the one using its dominance in the OS market to force manufacturers to comply, not the other way around. If they want to sell computers with Windows 8, they have to enable Secureboot by default, and in the case of ARM devices, make it impossible to disable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit
The diehard Linux users, does anyone really care about them?
So, according to you, nobody should care either about the 8% that uses Macs, the 3% that uses Vista, or the 2% that uses mobile browsers. As long as you're covered, screw everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit
Linux comprises 5% of the installed OS market, and of that 5% how many actually bought it?
Bought it? Linux is free, as in beer and speech. You don't buy it, you download it and install it. But if you buy a computer off the shelf that comes with Windows 8, you shouldn't be banned from replacing the OS with the one of your choice.
That's easy to say right now. But just wait until you have no rights at all to do anything on your computer without Microsoft's permission. (It's already getting there.)
A computer isn't a hairdryer. It's a machine that often carries very personal information on it. From an ethical point of view, no company should have any power to determine what you do or don't do with your computer.
People use computers for a variety of purposes. I have a PC that is used for audio production. Linux-based, obviously. I've even changed the kernel to have realtime capabilities. (Something you will never have with Windows.)
In addition, I don't need an anti-virus, and I install ONLY the applications that I need. Nothing else. Lightweight and free.
Computers must remain in the hands of the people. If you want Windows, fine. If you don't, that's also your choice.
Today many applications are substituting those that were commercial products made by Microsoft. LibreOffice/OpenOffice are completely free, and so everything Office does (afaict).
The advantage is not only saving money. It's being able to set up your PC the way you like. Period.
My question is: why are people still using Windows????
That's easy to say right now. But just wait until you have no rights at all to do anything on your computer without Microsoft's permission. (It's already getting there.)
A computer isn't a hairdryer. It's a machine that often carries very personal information on it. From an ethical point of view, no company should have any power to determine what you do or don't do with your computer.
People use computers for a variety of purposes. I have a PC that is used for audio production. Linux-based, obviously. I've even changed the kernel to have realtime capabilities. (Something you will never have with Windows.)
In addition, I don't need an anti-virus, and I install ONLY the applications that I need. Nothing else. Lightweight and free.
Computers must remain in the hands of the people. If you want Windows, fine. If you don't, that's also your choice.
Today many applications are substituting those that were commercial products made by Microsoft. LibreOffice/OpenOffice are completely free, and so everything Office does (afaict).
The advantage is not only saving money. It's being able to set up your PC the way you like. Period.
My question is: why are people still using Windows????
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.