Paying danegeld is never a good idea.

[dsrtao]

The UEFI Signed Boot system is a requirement from Microsoft that all PC hardware refuse to boot any operating system that isn't approved by them. To get approval, you pay the UEFI people money and submit your code. They sign off on it, and you get the magic token that allows it to boot.

Mark my words: everyone using the UEFI Signed Boot system will have cause to regret it.

Putting your neck in someone else's hands is not an acceptable tradeoff.

Details from a reluctant collaborator:
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html

Comments

[dlevey.livejournal.com]

I am a Fedora user and not Ubuntu - nothing against Ubuntu, but my machines were running Fedora code before there was Ubuntu (and RH before that) and never saw the reason to switch. O bring this up because Fedora made a different decision on a similar topic in the past: MP3s. Fedora decided to stay pure and not include MP3 support because that would taint the kernel with proprietary code (never mind potential legal aspects). While they did reluctantly support a way in which you could add that "taint," it was not enabled or even available by default. Ubuntu, as I understand it, makes it far easier. Also note that the user base percentages have hugely shifted; Fedora was once the dominant distribution, but it's been Ubuntu all the way for a number of years now. I would posit that this decision contributed to that balance shift.

This seems to be a similar situation. They can stand on principle, and remain pure - and their install base will suffer, as people who can't or won't fiddle with the firmware will drop them. Or they can compromise, swallow the bitter pill, and collaborate while they try to find a third way - the route they've chosen, and one which will allow them to keep their install base. From a business standpoint, and a long-term Linux standpoint, I think it's the better option. Standing out in the woods yelling about a problem won't help if your group is only 2 or 3; standing in the front lobby with 10 people has more impact even if you had to submit to an unreasonable search to get in the door.

[dsrtao]

I'm not a Fedora user -- nothing against them, except that I think that they are making a really bad choice.

UEFI can't make any computer safer to use without also having an OS that refuses to run any unsigned code. That's an Orwellian disaster, and is precisely what Apple and Microsoft are aiming for. The end result cements those two as rulers of the world.

No Linux distribution should accept UEFI. Windows users should refuse to purchase UEFI computers that don't offer an open boot option. Mac users will be nailed to the wall.

[dlevey.livejournal.com]

In principle, I agree with you. I would love it if Windows users rose up in unified revolt. How likely is that to happen? Windows users ask "does it work" and not "is it ethical". Linux distributions don't have much traction as it is, especially for desktop uses, and taking this stand would likely lock them out of the room entirely. Even now they won't have a seat at the table, but at least they get into the room. I think it may be the best of the awful alternatives.

Let me ask: should Linux distros refuse to play ball with UEFI, what do you see as the realistic result? To me, the way to gain traction and market share is not with the techies; much of that market is saturated. They need to demonstrate that they are a mainstream product if they ever hope to be a mainstream product, and any installation instructions that start with "first, go into the BIOS and..." loses immediately. Hardware manufacturers who want to sell Linux machines will deal with this one way or another, either by setting the boot to open or by making sure the code is altered to fit. WWDD? What Would Dell Do?

[dsrtao]

The appropriate places to apply leverage are, approximately:

- Corporations making large purchases of PCs
- State and federal IT purchases
- The EFF
- Congresscritters

[dlevey.livejournal.com]

The corporations will go with what ends up costing less, in terms of perceived after-purchase costs as well as up front; they've been sold the idea that Windows "just works" and they'll go with that - especially since for the most part it does. That MS has sweetheart deals with the hardware manufacturers regarding proprietary drivers, microcode, and the like only strengthens that perception. While it would be lovely to see a major corporation abandoning Windows to pick up Linux for desktop machines, I don't really see that happening soon. They've got too much institutional inertia to abandon the dominant platform, and this deal will simply seal that fate rather than get them pissed off enough to change.

State and Federal IT purchases... that may stand a chance, given the way the laws are written. Indeed, they may end up being *mandated* to make that change. The problem is, again, existing dominance; unless all the software they use can be found in the Linux world, they have the waiver to maintain Windows. Even if not, it requires a federal computer specialist with vision (and a compliant purchasing manager) to make this happen (unless things have changed radically since I last worked for the feds).

The EFF - yes, but how effective will they be? What is the public perception?

Congresscritters? Please. They go where the money is, and it's in Redmond and Cupertino, not Raleigh or in London. The best bet in that respect is in questioning whether the monopolistic tendencies this encourages runs afoul of Sherman, and the ability of Linux distros to adapt to the new ecosphere (whether they choose to or not) makes that more difficult.

And remember: when you leave the field of battle, you can't then complain that the field has been taken over by your opponents.