F5F Stay Refreshed Software Operating Systems Very few operating systems include secure boot support.

Very few operating systems include secure boot support.

Very few operating systems include secure boot support.

Pages (2): 1 2 Next
U
Unmute_
Junior Member
39
04-06-2016, 11:01 PM
#1
Linux systems such as Fedora, openSUSE, RHEL, CentOS, and others have been available since 2012 and appear capable of supporting newer releases. I’m looking forward to testing Manjaro soon.
U
Unmute_
04-06-2016, 11:01 PM #1

Linux systems such as Fedora, openSUSE, RHEL, CentOS, and others have been available since 2012 and appear capable of supporting newer releases. I’m looking forward to testing Manjaro soon.

R
redmen74
Member
61
04-06-2016, 11:14 PM
#2
You can get any distro you want to support secure boot, it's just that Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSUSE, RHEL, and some of their derivatives are the big ones that support it out of the box. There's a way to get it enabled in Manjaro with the AUR, but I haven't cared enough to go through the effort of enabling it so don't know the specifics for how to do it.
R
redmen74
04-06-2016, 11:14 PM #2

You can get any distro you want to support secure boot, it's just that Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSUSE, RHEL, and some of their derivatives are the big ones that support it out of the box. There's a way to get it enabled in Manjaro with the AUR, but I haven't cared enough to go through the effort of enabling it so don't know the specifics for how to do it.

E
EndermanMan18
Senior Member
250
04-14-2016, 01:39 PM
#3
The requirement stems from Microsoft's need to sign the boot loader, which they enforce through fees. They also reject GPLv3 projects, making it harder for open-source alternatives to gain access. This isn't a technical block but a business decision by a major player in the market.
E
EndermanMan18
04-14-2016, 01:39 PM #3

The requirement stems from Microsoft's need to sign the boot loader, which they enforce through fees. They also reject GPLv3 projects, making it harder for open-source alternatives to gain access. This isn't a technical block but a business decision by a major player in the market.

Y
yalo29
Senior Member
641
04-16-2016, 08:02 AM
#4
It's strange they targeted MS for both Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer. This situation is quite frustrating because support for Windows 10 is dropping, and Windows 10 now needs secure boot or disables updates. It seems like the media player and IE were once monopolies, but that doesn't explain why this happened.
Y
yalo29
04-16-2016, 08:02 AM #4

It's strange they targeted MS for both Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer. This situation is quite frustrating because support for Windows 10 is dropping, and Windows 10 now needs secure boot or disables updates. It seems like the media player and IE were once monopolies, but that doesn't explain why this happened.

R
RonniMolo4ko_
Member
172
04-22-2016, 04:56 AM
#5
You can always use your own keys for Secure Boot if you really want to, though I strongly suggest turning it off. Be aware that Fedora and other systems stop working when you load any third-party modules, such as Nvidia drivers. https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Unified...ecure_Boot
R
RonniMolo4ko_
04-22-2016, 04:56 AM #5

You can always use your own keys for Secure Boot if you really want to, though I strongly suggest turning it off. Be aware that Fedora and other systems stop working when you load any third-party modules, such as Nvidia drivers. https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Unified...ecure_Boot

D
Dennis6702
Junior Member
4
04-22-2016, 07:02 AM
#6
Likely due to its lower visibility and lack of legal action so far, it probably doesn’t qualify as anti-competitive. It seems the issue began when Opera Software filed a lawsuit. Being a free product makes it harder to argue against competition.
D
Dennis6702
04-22-2016, 07:02 AM #6

Likely due to its lower visibility and lack of legal action so far, it probably doesn’t qualify as anti-competitive. It seems the issue began when Opera Software filed a lawsuit. Being a free product makes it harder to argue against competition.

M
MrSubway1999
Member
111
04-26-2016, 03:42 AM
#7
You might also use an ISo with Secureboot enabled and remap its non-secure boot settings. I attempted this earlier, but it feels like I missed some details.
M
MrSubway1999
04-26-2016, 03:42 AM #7

You might also use an ISo with Secureboot enabled and remap its non-secure boot settings. I attempted this earlier, but it feels like I missed some details.

B
beschteLars
Member
221
05-01-2016, 05:37 AM
#8
It looks like most people would realize there are many dual boot users. When support for 10 ends and secure boot becomes necessary, it puts a lot of pressure on them.
B
beschteLars
05-01-2016, 05:37 AM #8

It looks like most people would realize there are many dual boot users. When support for 10 ends and secure boot becomes necessary, it puts a lot of pressure on them.

J
jaffercake59
Member
163
05-08-2016, 03:14 AM
#9
It's worth noting:
1. The cost to sign the bootloader is minimal, possibly around $99, though it might still pose a challenge for small distributions but not necessarily for larger ones.
2. The GPLv3 isn't relevant because the shim is licensed under a BSD-style agreement.
J
jaffercake59
05-08-2016, 03:14 AM #9

It's worth noting:
1. The cost to sign the bootloader is minimal, possibly around $99, though it might still pose a challenge for small distributions but not necessarily for larger ones.
2. The GPLv3 isn't relevant because the shim is licensed under a BSD-style agreement.

M
Minegus_Dub
Member
172
05-08-2016, 12:02 PM
#10
It seems you're asking about installing UEFI and wondering if using the GUI installer works fine. Just to clarify, the manufacturer might face legal issues if they claim it's incorrect.
M
Minegus_Dub
05-08-2016, 12:02 PM #10

It seems you're asking about installing UEFI and wondering if using the GUI installer works fine. Just to clarify, the manufacturer might face legal issues if they claim it's incorrect.

Pages (2): 1 2 Next