Comment on How long do we have before PCs get locked bootloaders and corporations ban installation of "non-approved" software? (for context: Google is restricting sideloading worldwide on Android ETA 2027)

Atomic@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  It’s been attempted in two ways.
  First is secure boot. There were a handful of computers sold that did not allow disabling of secure boot, or changing the loaded keys. So it was basically essentially a Windows only computer.
  More recently is there was Microsoft Windows S. This was a cheap version of Windows Home that ran on low end computers and was locked to only allow installing apps from the Microsoft store. It was possible to unlock it but as I recall it required an additional fee.

  Enterprises almost all run Windows anyway so they DGAF.

  source

  • Atomic@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Enterprises use a lot, and I do mean A LOT of custom software. Either developed in house or by others. They absolutely care.

    What Microsoft does within their own OS, as the “S” version you’re talking about. That’s a non issue given you can just flash the drive and install whatever OS you want.

    As for the concern that you’d somehow be unable to install another OS. Due to Secure Boot. I personally have never come across a computer that I’ve had full BIOS access to that didn’t allow disabling secure boot. Though some have been more cooperative than others. But maybe I’m just lucky.

    But I’m also pretty sure there are linux distributions that support Secure Boot.

    Secure Boot for what it’s intended to do, is a pretty good feature. Which is to stop unauthorized software from running before initiating your OS

    source

    • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      I was talking about secure boot. If the computer only runs Windows, enterprise doesn’t care. If the computer only runs Windows S, it’s an absolute nonstarter in enterprise tons of apps aren’t on the app store. But Windows S is never targeted to enterprise, only low end home users.

      Anything can support secure boot, the question is, are the keys included in the BIOS so it can run that particular OS without loading extra keys?

      I’ve also not personally encountered a computer where secure boot couldn’t be disabled or the list of keys modified, but I’ve definitely heard about them existing.

      source

      • Atomic@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        What exactly is your argument? Why would a computer only be able to run Windows?

        Secure Boot doesn’t restrict anyone to only windows. Even if we play with the idea that it’s impossible to disable it. You can still install some Linux distributions.

        Anything can support secure boot, the question is, are the keys included in the BIOS so it can run that particular OS without loading extra keys?

        I don’t even understand what you’re trying to say… You don’t need keys in BIOS to install either Windows, or Linux. The only purpose for the BIOS key is for users to be able to just boot up their new computer that they bought factory new WITH their OS of choice without having to go through extra steps of verifying your OS license.

        But you don’t NEED a key in BIOS. You can still buy a key separately to set up Windows. Same goes with paid versions of Linux distributions, such as Red Hat.

        source
  • Chrobin@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Fedora supports secure boot out of the box

    source

    • hayvan@feddit.nl ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      So does Ubuntu, but there is a catch. Secure boot relies on signature checking, so you can manually add the signature of your OS manually to the UEFI db, but can’t do that on locked UEFI. Major Linux providers went another route, they paid Microsoft to sign a shim binary, which in turn can verify and boot the matching Linux kernels. Microsoft refusing to sign shims would be a rather crippling move, but they would get a massive backlash from that.

      source
  • tarknassus@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Isn’t secure boot signed by Microsoft anyway IIRC? I know Lenovo had their own signing too. From my knowledge, installing a secure-boot supported linux version requires a ‘shim’ to allow it, and there was an issue that came up as the keys are due to expire for older OS versions.

    Of course, Secure Boot can be switched off as well. (for now)

    source