<story><title>Machines shipping with Windows 10 may see OEMs enforcing Secure Boot</title><url>http://www.linuxveda.com/2015/03/21/no-love-lost-microsoft-tries-block-linux-windows-machines/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>mark_l_watson</author><text>Ubuntu, Redhat, and other distros are compatible with secure boot.&lt;p&gt;I understand the concern, but the flip side is that if secure boot makes my future Ubuntu laptops more secure that could be a good thing.&lt;p&gt;Linux is here to stay. Relax.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>jeff_marshall</author><text>This is true today, but it ignores the realities of many secure boot implementations. Specifically, many UEFI firmware vendors don&amp;#x27;t include the ability for the hardware owner to update the public key used to verify a bootloader signature. This means that someone wanting to use a new bootloader on one of these platforms has to beg for permission from whoever owns the existing keys (Microsoft seems to be popular right now...) to get their software to boot. Right now, MS is willing to sign bootloaders for OSS, but this could change at any time. Do you really want MS to control the ability to boot your operating system of choice?</text></comment>
<story><title>Machines shipping with Windows 10 may see OEMs enforcing Secure Boot</title><url>http://www.linuxveda.com/2015/03/21/no-love-lost-microsoft-tries-block-linux-windows-machines/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>mark_l_watson</author><text>Ubuntu, Redhat, and other distros are compatible with secure boot.&lt;p&gt;I understand the concern, but the flip side is that if secure boot makes my future Ubuntu laptops more secure that could be a good thing.&lt;p&gt;Linux is here to stay. Relax.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>DougHaber</author><text>What if I prefer Debian over Ubuntu?  Can I be upset then?  I&amp;#x27;m sure this will be possible to hack around, but we shouldn&amp;#x27;t have to hack our own computers to use them.   A simple option to disable secure boot would solve all the problems.  The vendors know this, so I&amp;#x27;m curious why they would chose to not provide the option.  Is there some belief that by even having the option, the system would be inherently more insecure?&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m sure that some vendors will provide an option, so this will just likely be an extra thing to research before buying a new system.</text></comment>