Sorry, but I haven’t had time yet to get back to the double standards post and writing stuff like this is much easier.

Those of you who are Linux users and follow any Linux blogs have probably come across Microsoft’s Windows 8 “Secure Boot” plan as part of the Windows Logo certification (allows the “Designed for Windows 8” sticker). This includes embedding a signed key in the firmware and into the OS and/or its boot loader, thus the BIOS wouldn’t allow an unsigned OS to boot and Windows 8 will not boot without the key on the motherboard. Windows 8 will be able to boot on new hardware but older versions of Windows, viruses, Linux, etc won’t be able to. This would also prevent users from installing Windows 8 on an older system unless they can get the appropriate BIOS update from the hardware vendor. The fact that Windows needs to lock down the BIOS to fix it’s inherent security flaws shows how much it sucks compared to Linux, BSD, OS X, etc.

The standards does allow for being able to disable secure boot, of course then Windows 8 won’t boot. It’ll be interesting to see which computer and motherboard manufacturers will allow people to disable it and which won’t bother. If they don’t, Linux users will rally around the manufacturers who respect their freedom, of course few will care due to how small the Linux market is. If, on the other hand, they all lock it down then it won’t take hackers (note: not all Linux users are hackers) long to crack the code and they very well may publish it widely online, thus putting Windows back at risk.

Some commentary on the topic suggests that the EU won’t allow it considering how large Microsoft’s market share is and how this could severely limit competition from Linux, BSD, etc. However, if they just require an off switch in the BIOS, then it would severely discourage dual booting since nobody would to have to change BOIS settings each time they want to play a game. One way around this would be to have an option to set a default (either on or off) and have a function key available to switch to the other option. Theoretically I could imagine that with secure boot disabled you could just press F6, for example, to turn it on for that one boot only. Otherwise, I imagine some Linux developer creating a low level virtual machine that would include the hacked key and spoof secure boot to allow Windows to boot from GRUB.

All of those scenarios still limit choice, because for a new user to even bother trying Linux it needs to be easy. That’s why Ubuntu and Linux Mint are so user friendly, they’re designed for newbies. If creating a dual boot system requires too many changes in the BIOS and a completely reinstallation of Windows it would be just difficult enough to discourage experimentation, of course if they were to be able to include the VM hack it would be easier, but Canonical (the company behind Ubuntu) would be a big enough target to get sued over that.

As long as I can disable it, it wouldn’t effect me. When I build a new system I already tweak plenty in the BIOS so one more setting wouldn’t bother me and since I know how vulnerable Windows is I put it where vulnerabilities belong, isolated from my hardware in a Virtual Machine. However, for a gamer that just wouldn’t work. Windows XP, already a decade old will also become unsupported in two years, making it so that there are no new updates (allowing vulnerabilities to be exploited) and reducing the likelihood that new drivers will be developed for it.

I expect most of the masses to just blindly accept it as a security improvement since they’re already slaves to Microsoft. Two groups who’s reactions I’m curious about are freethinkers and libertarians.

Part of me thinks it won’t be too big of an issue for most Windows using freethinkers since the way that Apple controls the systems they sell doesn’t deter a lot of atheists from using Macs. But, I do think that some of the more tech savvy of the crowd might take issue with it.

I picture libertarians taking one of two positions on it, either it’s Microsoft’s right as a business to demand this from hardware vendors or it’s the consumer’s right to be able to control the hardware they own, even if that means dual boot their system or selecting a different OS if they see fit.

I’m curious what all of you think, especially full and part time Windows users. Would this be enough for you to switch to Mac or Linux? If you dual boot would the hassle of going into the BIOS every time you want to switch be enough for you to dump one OS, if so which would you dump?