Hacker News Reader

In this thread: a bunch of people who know nothing about computers spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

The reality is: Windows boots fine with Secure Boot disabled. Linux boots fine from UEFI; the Debian installer sets everything up perfectly.

View on HN

OpenBSD doesn't support UEFI, and will never boot from it.

UEFI (better called Restricted Boot) takes away the user's freedom.

I want to own my hardware. I don't want the manufacturer to own it. I don't truly own it unless I can run whatever software I want on it. I don't own it if it prevents me from doing anything I want to do -- no matter what that is.

I guess I don't understand how UEFI is inherently less free than BIOS. I assume most of of the opposition is due to secure boot, but every implementation I've used let the user manage keys for secure boot or disable it entirely. Are there other reasons that UEFI is a threat to computing freedom?

The Asus model 1015E does not let you disable Restricted Boot, nor does it allow you to re-enable Legacy Boot.

I don't have direct proof or experience, but I understand that many other models (and manufacturers) are similarly broken.

Buggy BIOS is nothing new.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com