Well, I'm most certainly no apologist for Microsoft, and I'm unconvinced (due quote possibly to having not read that much yet) of the utility of this feature, but the Wikipedia page does say Linux has support:
*Secure boot is supported by Windows 8 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_8> and 8.1, Windows Server 2012 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_2012> and 2012 R2, and a number of Linux distributions <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_distribution> including Fedora <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedora_%28operating_system%29> (since version 18), openSUSE <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSUSE> (since version 12.3), and Ubuntu <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_%28operating_system%29> (since version 12.04.2).[44] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface#cite_note-47> As of June 2015, FreeBSD <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD> support is in a planning stage.* So that's something, at least. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Paul Gilmartin < [email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:28:54 +0800, Timothy Sipples wrote: > > > >(a) The Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI). UEFI features > >something called "Secure Boot." To summarize, even open source operating > >systems must be cryptographically signed with an unrevoked key in order to > >boot. Starting with Windows 10, Microsoft has "persuaded" the industry > >(OEMs) to make Secure Boot mandatory. This is quite controversial, it's > >fair to say. You don't have to "jailbreak" a mainframe just because you > >want/need to run a modified Linux kernel in an emergency, for example -- > >and it's probably not even possible to "jailbreak" Secure Boot. > > > So where does this leave Linux for the x86 platform? Is Microsoft trying > to kill Linux? The FTC should have much to say about that, perhaps > prodded by such as Google. > > Of course, I understand Google makes its own hardware (or contracts > it to spec). And any OEMs could go it alone; not sign the Secure Boot > agreement. But they'd be abandoning the Windows market, perhaps > not economically viable. And could Microsoft leverage DHS/DMCA to > block even that? > > Who maintains the key registry? (I have a plausible guess.) Will > OSF be able to afford (a) key(s)? > > -- gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
