Enough with the UEFI drama already

[Ramchu]

Updated: February 20, 2013

 Recently, at a rate of about once a day, a new article comes blaming Microsoft for being evil and using their Secure Boot thingie to monopolize the desktop and prevent Linux from taking over. On top of that, Microsoft notwithstanding, lots of people are blaming UEFI for not letting them boot various Linux distributions.

I would like to use this opportunity to dispell myths and fears and pure, simple disinformation, as most of the articles written on this topic are nothing more than FUD designed to generate controversy, traffic and revenue. So let's see what gives, and why UEFI is all right, and why there is no problem whatsoever.

http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/uefi-drama.html

[Dimplewidget]

There is one negative your overlooking.  When someone tries on their own to try Linux, an UEFI setup issue can be another frustrating stumbling block toward a person staying with Linux.

[AndrzejL]

Enough with the UEFI drama already

I said that before. Let me quote myself.

Another UEFI thread? How sweet...

Ok I got annoyed so here are my 2 cents.

Stop worrying about the freakin UEFI crap. We ain't come this far...

Every time something bad was about to happen Linux community pulled through and we fixed what was there to fix and we moved forward.

Arch Linux which i am currently using already has a way of their own of dealing with UEFI booting described here. It's not pretty but it works - how long do You think before other distros will come up with their own way of dealing with it? How long before it will get implemented so it will be just another step in Linux installer? Not long I think... Give it time and like I said - don't loose sleep over UEFI...

Is UEFI really that scary? Some people want you to think so. Stop worrying. It's gonna be fine.

I don't know why but there is always something we are suppose to be affraid of. Threads like "Mozilla and Google contract is almost up and I hear google is not extending it!!!! MOZILLA IS GOING TO VANISH??!1!1!!" or "SOPA WILL KILL INTERNETZ??!?!1/1!?" were (amongst few other FUD packed threads) popular last year... and what happened? NOTHING. Google and Mozilla signed new contract and SOPA (under this and other names like ACTA and CISPA) was fought off and that was the end of story but the amount of speculations and threads and blog post whining was endless... It's like people NEED something to be worried about. It's like they want to feel this whip over their shoulders constantly or they don'f feel good about themselves.

Is UEFI annoying? Absolutely but is it the hammer for Linux? I don't bloody think so...

Good link Ramchu.

Regards.

Andrzej

[bicol_willem]

"UEFI is no devil. It's just different from BIOS"


I, for one, don´t like the difference. BIOS has worked well for me as it does today. I see no reason why it would not work tomorrow. 

[AndrzejL]

"UEFI is no devil. It's just different from BIOS"

I, for one, don´t like the difference. BIOS has worked well for me as it does today. I see no reason why it would not work tomorrow.  

There are many reasons. BIOS was limited. UEFI will go beyond those limitations.

Plus it's not like all of the sudden Your machine will loose BIOS and UEFI will pop in it's place... You will continue to use Your machine unchanged - its the newer machines that You will buy that will contain UEFI.

I am not sure if all new machines will be forced to use UEFI or will You be able to buy BIOS machines too...

Regards.

Andrzej

[Just17]

This is just an apology for MS and nothing else.

Yes there are several problems.

All of them can be traaced back to MS and its original plans for secure boot.

In the matter of ARM hardware, MS insists there is no way to turn off secure boot.
The writer compares this to Apple.
Apples and Oranges!

Apple produce their own hardware, MS does not.
Apple can reasonably determine what their hardware is capable of.
MS is determining what ALL ARM hardware on which its OS is to be installed, is capable of.

That is a problem and is NOT acceptable!

There is nothing wrong with UEFI ...  it works well and is a big improvement on the standard BIOS.

The implementation of secure boot is a completely different matter.


My only hope is that the writer soon meets with a whole lot of problems that are not easy to resolve, and then can still say that non-skilled users can easily overcome those problems.

Good luck with that!

Dedoimedo ----  MS apologist!

[ZX80Man]

+1, Just17

Also, I don't think ms has been in charge of bios, so how do they assume the control over secure boot?
If they allow changes/boot options now, whats to say, down the road, they don't change our options?
Bad Idea!
Throw it out with that other ms rubbish. (me, vista)  Who needs it... 

[AndrzejL]

@ Just17... You know I am the black sheep of this family and that I lack diplomacy skills and eloquence as I was told. I am scaring off noobs... and so on... Well... I really do appreciate the comments on that but what I appreciate even more is a no-bs attitude and honesty. Thanks for Your post - it's obvious You feel strong about the subject but I am one of the folks who knows how that feels.

I don't feel as strong about this whole UEFI stuff as You do however I have a gut feeling that everything will be just fine. I don't know why. I just do. If I am wrong... I will be forced to run Microsoft products... that's one heck of a punishment .

Regards.

Andrzej

[Just17]

@ Just17... You know I am the black sheep of this family and that I lack diplomacy skills and eloquence as I was told. I am scaring off noobs... and so on... Well... I really do appreciate the comments on that but what I appreciate even more is a no-bs attitude and honesty. Thanks for Your post - it's obvious You feel strong about the subject but I am one of the folks who knows how that feels.

I don't feel as strong about this whole UEFI stuff as You do however I have a gut feeling that everything will be just fine. I don't know why. I just do. If I am wrong... I will be forced to run Microsoft products... that's one heck of a punishment .

Regards.

Andrzej

Yes I feel strongly about it.

I also believe the problems will be overcome ....  but not without unnecessary disruption and hassle.
The road could have been much smoother ....

I do not see a future where I would be forced to use a particular OS.

I do see a future where a lot of discarded machines do not get re-used, but instead get re-cycled (essentially dumped).
Presently any such machine can be re-used ....  but with secure boot problems that might well change if the manufacturers not only comply to the letter of the MS diktat but also to what MS might like - difficult to manage dual/triple boot. It is difficult to blame manufacturers for trying to curry MS favour given the MS effective monopoly.

I hope that the MS scheme for ARM hardware might be challenged in the EU ..... and as I see it the only way they can avoid this is to produce their own hardware, as Apple does. Indeed they have indicated that is their intention. I would have no problem with that ....  IMO they can lock down their own hardware to their hearts content. Such hardware is then easily avoided.

......  of course there is also the possibility of hardware hacks ......    ....  which many years ago was the norm ....

[Tony]

Anything MS does that affects our freedom is a worry, or probably more of a nuisance.

The guy in linked article gives the assumption that 90% of Comp users just use MS products, with no concern as to this or that. Assuming 10% is neglible is insane !

Indeed, Microsoft definitely want to ensure their market share. But given the restrictions and lack thereof, for Windows and Windows RT, there does not seem to be any real problem. Moreover, some simple statistics. 90% of all computers are running Microsoft Windows, one version or another. Roughly 90% of all computers come preinstalled, and their users never bother changing anything. Some 90% of people will never think about dual-booting or using any other operating system other than the usual crap that comes by default. Linux never was and never is an issue.

On that same note, people who use Linux are savvy, skilled and can easily enter the UEFI menu and make changes needed to allow dual and triple and whatever booting on their boxes. Most Linux users will also likely purchase generic hardware, without any operating system installations, so the notion of Secure Boot will never be raised. Much ado about nothing, but drama is more fun.

I love the openeness of a IBM compatible Computer. You can open the box and put your own Harware in, and it's very DIY. My greatest fear would be if MS went the way of Apple were you need a can opener to get to the Hardware, by which time you've destroed your Apple computer.
I suppose there are so many Hardware manufacturers that making a 'Box" unopenable is not likey to happen anytime soon.

AndrzejL:

I said that before. Let me quote myself.

     

[menotu]

Different blogs/articles may cover certain (different) aspects relating to UEFU & Secure Boot so if they provide a better understanding for all of us I see that as a good thing.

There are posts (and links) on this forum which have certainly given me a better understanding of them

[Tony]

Thanks menotu for posting and sharing so much of the important issues in the Blogosphere, an open mind as you say is important for interpretting the mean.

[Dimplewidget]

I 'm not saying it's a conspiracy just one more thing that can go wrong for a given individual.

[joechimp]

Microsoft and Google belong in the cesspool of eternity.

[sammy2fish]

I suffer this problem too.

I updated my tower.  1,500.00 bucks later, I have a Gigabyte UEFI motherboard.  Yah.. you can jump around and make what you want, happen.   But how many people are going to do that?  I'm in my late 50's.  I just want it to work.

That is why I have one computer that runs windows7, and another that  runs PCLinuxOS-kde... sorry