Hacker News Reader

Comment by richij | Hacker News Reader

Sadly, some OEMs do not permit it to be disabled.

Sorry, I mis-spoke. SJVN corrected me: "I've never heard of an x86 OEM that doesn't allow secure boot to be turned off, Some do make it almost impossible to figure out how." (https://twitter.com/sjvn/status/302093489347375107)

Which OEMs? Reference? Or are you regurgitating hearsay FUD from Reddit comments and SJVN?

I know what Reddit comments are, but what is SJVN?

(Not disagreeing with your comment.)

I guess that would be Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols of ZDNet.

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!

I believe the Windows 8 certification _requires_ that the user be able to disable secure boot on x86.

Yes, but some OEMs may ship machines without Windows 8 certification, and Microsoft cannot do anything about them shipping with no way to turn Secure Boot off, an ironic consequence of the DoJ lawsuit against them.

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.

And even with the OEMs who do get Win8 certification - do we trust Microsoft to enforce their own rule? If they omit the switch, or it doesn't work, will Microsoft withhold certification?

Maybe they will. But I'm glad Linux has strategies that don't rely on that.

Mea maxima culpa. (See my other reply quoting SJVN's more nuanced opinion.)

> Yes, but some OEMs may ship machines without Windows 8 certification

If an OEM is shipping Windows without a Microsoft logo/MDA contract, what possible incentive would they have for enabling Secure Boot at all?

I believe the Windows 8 certification _requires_ that the user not be able to disable secure boot on ARM.

Microsoft in fact LOVES Linux :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com