On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nilesh Govindarajan wrote: >> >> On Mon 26 Sep 2011 08:51:17 PM IST, James Broadhead wrote: >>> >>> On 26 September 2011 16:01, Mick<michaelkintz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I don't know if you have seen this. Given that we're moving into UEFI >>>> boot what are the workarounds to compensate for Microsoft's efforts to >>>> exclude other operating systems from available hardware? >>> >>> My opinion is that signed boot is probably on its way (despite not >>> actually offering much in the way of security, as the Apple Battery >>> hack has shown), and so we'll enter an era where you have the option >>> between a fully-signed system (Windows 9 / OS XI or so) or a cracked >>> boot, with little in the way of switching between the two, at least >>> initially >>> >>> I know which one I'd pick if it came down to it :) >> >> And you really need not worry about it, some geek (Torvalds?) will >> surely find out a way. >> > > Well, since I don't have or use M$'s junk, I guess I am OK then? I just > need to make sure any mobo I buy in the future either doesn't have this or > can be disabled? > > Heck, if you didn't have to reboot windoze all the time, they wouldn't need > this. lol
Most hardware will have UEFI. The trick will be making sure the harware you buy allows the "secure boot" part of it to be turned off. Microsoft's program requires vendors to support using secure boot, but doesn't _require_ them to support _not_ using secure boot. -- :wq
