the relationship shifts, many parts are unclear.. especially after MSFT took direct interest in Ubuntu, with adding custom partition types (edit msft-reserved, msft-data) to the OS installer, and new code to require signed encryption keys to the UEFI boot; keys registered or directly issued by MSFT.
OK - try an LUbuntu Install disk for 22.04; run the installer, after Welcome,Location,Keyboard in the Partition task, create a new Partition Table; make a new disk partition, see the list of available partition types, choose ext4; see FLAGS [apple-tv-recovery,bios-grub,boot,diag,hidden,hpservice,lba,legacy-boot,lvm,msft-data,msft-reserved,palo,prep,raid,root,swap]
I don't get the insinuation, it conflates things that span at least a decade. It sucks that Microsoft is where they are in secure boot... but one can manage their own policies/keys.
Support is a good thing, nobody is forced to use secure boot or things signed by Microsoft.
> Support is a good thing, nobody is forced to use secure boot or things signed by Microsoft.
ok it is true that these partition types are older than I previously assumed.. but the statement about "forced to use secure boot" .. that is not true at all, yes lots of devices are forced to use UEFI secure boot. In fact, a quote from a Debian derivative recently stated "we use a kernel from Canonical to support booting a wider range of devices" .. because they just want to do that? no one is making them do that? really, the market truth of laptops and cloud VMs is requiring UEFI in a calculated way, with the keys being issued and managed centrally from MSFT. info welcome
Is it commonplace for laptops to not allow disabling Secure Boot? I work with desktops and big iron; it's entirely optional here.
Even in clouds - it's optional based on your compliance goals/requirements. 90% of the time it's KVM/QEMU with an API. Secure boot isn't slowly taking that scene over either, it's still optional support.
I really don't get the impression that we're losing control over our boot processes. We use the things signed by MS because it's convenient and the average user can't be bothered to do their own enrollment.
I see how this can be "boiling the frog", in a sense, but it's a bit close to conspiracy for me.
yes It Is commonplace for laptops to not allow disabling Secure Boot .. one recent low-end laptop did not allow booting from any device except the soldered-in boot disk, which used only UEFI and signing keys.
It's not common, no offense but you clearly have an axe to grind and started out with an incomplete understanding, so [citation needed].
Also, please do name and shame, especially since MICROSOFT MANDATES THAT SECURE BOOT IS DISABLE-ABLE (on x86 devices, anyway, we'll see what happens with Snapdragon X Elite devices).
1. The comment doesn't respond to any claims I made.
2. The comment doesn't do the bare minimum to back up their claims, after spouting already wrong information in this thread. (Sorry, not sorry, but if you're going to complain a device is non-compliant with MS's own SecureBoot requirements, it's really shouldn't be unexpected that someone might ask you to specify which device.)
3. Their comment is pithy, non-responsive, and doesn't advance the conversation in any meaningful way.
And mine is the one that gets modded?
EDIT: Also, a 22-hour old thread, with a reply getting flagged in <10 minutes. Hmmmmmmmmmm, wonder what that means.
