Hacker News Reader

Comment by kogir | Hacker News Reader

> The threat is not the UEFI specification itself, but in how computer manufacturers choose to implement the boot restrictions.

Exactly. When Apple shipped the first Intel Macs without Boot Camp, there wasn't outrage that Windows/Linux couldn't boot; People that cared just didn't buy them. Just don't purchase a computer that has been crippled by the manufacturer.

It will still be possible to build your own computer - OEMs will only bother to certify entire systems, and bare motherboard sales won't be affected by Windows Logo Certification since the class of users who build their own computers don't even notice marketing programs like that.

It's also likely that many, perhaps even most, certified systems will offer a means to disable or customize the secure boot functionality. You can disable Computrace, TPM, and Intel ME on virtually all machines that ship with them. This should be no different.

View on HN

The problem is not that enthusiasts who want to run an open source operating system won't be able to choose appropriate hardware to run that OS. The problem is that Secure Boot may remove the option of buying a Windows PC and then at some later time deciding that you want to run an open source operating system on it from those who weren't thinking about open source operating systems to begin with.

At the moment, every PC sold is a potential target for a Linux distribution or other open source operating system, and hence every PC sold increases the size of the potential market. Secure Boot has the potential to disrupt this: a PC with Secure Boot may deny the owner the ability to install and run an unauthorized operating system. This could significantly reduce the potential market for open source operating systems.

Look at it this way: at the moment if your mum/dad/grandparent/whoever is willing to try a different operating environment, you can install pretty much any Linux distribution (or other open source operating system) on their hardware, or if they can do so themselves. And by 'can' here, I don't just mean that you personally are able, but also that the original manufacturer allows that kind of thing to happen.

In the future, computer manufacturers may sell computers to people on which you (or they) will no longer be allowed to install an open source operating system for them to try out, even if they want to.

I would also like to mention the common use of Linux on recycled or older computer hardware. There is a mountain of hardware sitting in warehouses or going into landfill. Many of these machines are usable with Linux. If restrictive boot-loaders become common on consumer grade hardware, that option is closed off.

This is a win for computer makers -- why recycle old hardware when you can throw it away to buy new stuff?

A lot of the second-hand computers go to charities, and end up in schools of developing countries, etc. These are often places that wouldn't be able to afford computers otherwise.

On long term, the people who learn computing this way may be a market for new computers, and that makes it good for computer manufacturers.

Besides that, computers in a landfill is a terrible idea, ecology-wise.

Most CEOs don't think long-term. By the time long-term arrives, they'll have moved on to other companies.

They would probably prefer government programs to let those places buy new "modern" computers right now.

Do you have any data to back this up? I've been tasked with getting rid of old computers before (at a large company) and it was a very painful process. Schools wouldn't take them. I can't even imagine trying to send them to another country! We ended up actually paying someone to haul many of them away.

Hello bad_user. Yup your comment is probably spot on for the £300 15.4 inch 'household laptop' that is very popular in the UK for consumer purchase.

I suspect as pad devices and mobile phones take over the real mobile use cases, laptops will get a bit more expensive as the market shrinks.

There is an opportunity to build them a bit better and to make them a bit more recyclable/upgradeable. Each product manufacturer has to make small decisions like this across all areas if we are to achieve sustainable consumption.

The tricky bit is encouraging manufacturers to make those decisions.

> The problem is that Secure Boot may remove the option of buying a Windows PC and then at some later time deciding that you want to run an open source operating system on it from those who weren't thinking about open source operating systems to begin with.

Exactly. This is how I got into GNU/Linux in the first place, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Removing this option will severely hinder the adoption of better, free operating systems.

No - it is not the same. That was one manufacturer - this is everyone of them. With Apple, what you were looking at was a single, vertically integrated walled garden, that was never even the playing ground for DIY.

For many in the west, DIY is synonymous with "enthusiast". But here in Asia/India, a very VERY significant percentage of the total PC market is held by "unbranded" PCs - about 45% (ref: http://trak.in/tags/business/2011/05/17/top-pc-compnies-indi... ).

This is so relevant to the Indian market that it is almost scary. As a yardstick - for a fresh hire in India's largest tech employer, Infosys, buying a Macbook is almost 6 months salary. Buying an unbranded PC running Linux is about a month and a half salary.

Secondly, your assertion that motherboard sales wont be affected is wrong. The push to implement this is piracy and not marketing - which means Microsoft (and not the end users) will be the driving force behind the push to certify motherboards.

It will still be possible to build your own computer

It will still be possible to build your own desktop. Unfortunately, I need a laptop to work, since I often need to carry it around with me.

"It will still be possible to build your own computer"

That's like saying it will be possible to build your own tablet or laptop, because that's what most people will use in the future. People are moving away from PC's so that's not a very good argument.

How easy is it to get linux running on an iPad?.

I am not quite convinced that the days of the PC are over, but I can see the market being squeezed quite a bit. And none of the devices that are supposedly the future have the same open nature as the PC.

kogir wrote: "Exactly. When Apple shipped the first Intel Macs without Boot Camp, there wasn't outrage that Windows/Linux couldn't boot; People that cared just didn't buy them. Just don't purchase a computer that has been crippled by the manufacturer."

The free software movement seeks to educate all people about software freedom and to encourage them to value and protect software freedom.

When someone buying a product "doesn't care" about these restrictions, especially if the buyer doesn't understand what they are giving up, that's a problem the FSF wants to solve.

So, yes, by all means: if you don't want those restrictions, don't buy those products. The Free Software Foundation would like to help more people come to that same conclusion, rather than naively buying into a software world where users no longer have much control over their own computers.

What is important is that we have a voice that can apply pressure where required on the pc / motherboard manufacturers at this time, while things are yet to be decided.

The article does say that this could go either way; a point well worth raising with the decision makers who I expect aren't technical like us.

But not only that - we should also apply pressure on the government because this is an anti-competitive move endorsed by a convicted monopoly abuser.

well said.

This will also drive up the price on "free" hardware, since it will be different and produced in smaller quantity.

It's a little different when a single, minority system vendor who is selling systems at twice the price does something like this, vs. when the dominant player in 90% of the market wants to require it of all the PC vendors.

It doesn't make Apple right, but the surface area affected was much smaller so the objections were commensurately sparse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com