Who really cares. Regardless of how many use this app it will not give raise to the Linux OS. I been using Linux Suse for ten years now and still it has not improved to the level of OS X (whatever) or Windows 7. Until it does it will remain a geek OS (including me).

Feeling happy for Linux, ill thoughts for Microsoft and UEFI Secure Boot for restricting user rights under the guise of "security".

King Arthur said:

Feeling happy for Linux, ill thoughts for Microsoft and UEFI Secure Boot for restricting user rights under the guise of "security".

Secure boot: technical types spreading half-baked information

Linux distributions are making slow progress on implementing measures to ensure that their images available for download are bootable on hardware that has secure boot turned on.


Secure boot is a feature of the UEFI, the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface, a replacement for the BIOS.

Microsoft has implemented this feature on hardware certified for Windows 8 in a way that requires the exchange of cryptographic keys; since the company controls the key-signing authority, anyone who wants to create a bootable medium has to necessarily obtain a key from Redmond.

Misinformation is rife about secure boot, simply because people confuse UEFI with secure boot and think that support for the former means support for the latter. Many so-called technical types are as guilty as others of spreading wrong information.

mjg59 | Secure Boot distribution support

“Microsoft's real aim is to kill the aftermarket in used computers that have Win 8 installed by not allowing you to install something other than Windows”

Microsoft could just have refused to sign UEFI bootloaders. They didn't. That doesn't really fit in with what you're claiming.

If I buy a computer with Windows 8 and Secure Boot, will I still be able to install Linux? - Super User

First of all, Secure Boot is not something that Microsoft came up with. They're the first to widely implement it, but they didn't invent it. It's part of the UEFI specification, which is basically a newer replacement for the old BIOS that you're probably used to. UEFI is basically the software that talks between the OS and the hardware. UEFI standards are created by a group called the "UEFI Forum", which is made up of computing industry representatives including Microsoft, Apple, Intel, AMD, and a handful of computer manufacturers.

I did say "UEFI Secure Boot", IE: I was referring to the Secure Boot part of UEFI specifically, and also said I harbor ill will towards both MS and UEFI Secure Boot for what's happening on most PCs now. Not sure what you were going for there unless you were trying to reinforce my point.

King Arthur said:

I did say "UEFI Secure Boot", IE: I was referring to the Secure Boot part of UEFI specifically, and also said I harbor ill will towards both MS and UEFI Secure Boot for what's happening on most PCs now. Not sure what you were going for there unless you were trying to reinforce my point.

King Arthur said:

Feeling happy for Linux, ill thoughts for Microsoft and UEFI Secure Boot for restricting user rights under the guise of "security".

Q: What restricting of user rights.
A: NONE.

This is appropriate, a pattern of behavior exists with MS.

Embrace, extend and extinguish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Embrace, extend, and extinguish",[1] also known as "Embrace, extend, and exterminate",[2] is a phrase that the U.S. Department of Justice found[3] was used internally by Microsoft[4] to describe its strategy for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences to disadvantage its competitors.

You must also be an expert Linux user to even try to get this to work at this point.

I dont see how any cant see and if they still cant see then its no use trying to make them see.

theog said:

King Arthur said:

I did say "UEFI Secure Boot", IE: I was referring to the Secure Boot part of UEFI specifically, and also said I harbor ill will towards both MS and UEFI Secure Boot for what's happening on most PCs now. Not sure what you were going for there unless you were trying to reinforce my point.

King Arthur said:

Feeling happy for Linux, ill thoughts for Microsoft and UEFI Secure Boot for restricting user rights under the guise of "security".

Q: What restricting of user rights.
A: NONE.

When people need to grovel to Microsoft to get permission (aka: buying a UEFI Secure Boot security key from MS) to run the operating systems of their choice on their computers (disabling UEFI Secure Boot may or may not be an option), that is a clear restriction of what a user can do with hardware that they own and is an obvious ethical problem.

UEFI Secure Boot may have been conceived with computer security and user safety in mind, but in reality it's currently only being used to facilitate monopolization of the market and create artificial incompatibility between operating systems (including older MS operating systems like Windows XP and 7) and UEFI Secure Boot-enabled hardware. A user should always have the right to install whatever they wish on their computers, no hardware or software vendor should be in a position to dictate what a user can and cannot do.

UEFI & Secure Boot are not Mircosoft.

Unified Extensible Firmware Interface - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

specification was developed by Intel.

The UEFI specification is managed by the Unified EFI Forum.

King Artur said:

Feeling happy for Linux, ill thoughts for Microsoft and UEFI Secure Boot for restricting user rights under the guise of "security".

My test rig with UEFI & Secure Boot.

HDD1 = Windows 8 in uEFI mode
HDD2 = Windows 7 in uEFI mode
HDD3 = Ubuntu in uEFI mode

theog said:

Q: What restricting of user rights.
A: NONE.