Or is this fix just due to pre-installed OEM Windows 8 configurations with Secure Boot enabled?
Or is this fix just due to pre-installed OEM Windows 8 configurations with Secure Boot enabled?
Thus, the OEMs need to be named and shamed. However I am not holding my breath for richij (who also appears to be the article author) to name the OEMs.
Maybe they will. But I'm glad Linux has strategies that don't rely on that.
If an OEM is shipping Windows without a Microsoft logo/MDA contract, what possible incentive would they have for enabling Secure Boot at all?
(Not disagreeing with your comment.)
I remember him saying he wouldn't bet one nickel that the Surface Pro would come with a unlockable bootloader.
He should've bet a million, he would've won!
It runs without any issues on machines with secure boot disabled.
>Or is this fix just due to pre-installed OEM Windows 8 configurations with Secure Boot enabled?
Yes, although the user can disable secure boot, it's an additional step and also reduces the security of their Windows 8 boot (if they're still using it).