I’ve been closely monitoring the buzz surrounding Secure Boot and recently Computerworld presented a Microsoft Hardware documentthat suggests Microsoft will ensure that Secure Boot mandatory on ARM hardware.
A few months back my article presenting some trouble a LoCo member was having with a laptop sparked enough controversy that not only did it hit every corner of the open source community from forums to blogs but in addition a well-known Microsoft Pundit at ZDNet decided to chime in and to some degree tried to play down concerns surrounding Secure Boot.
Now that same pundit Ed Bott is yet again trying to downplay everyone’s concerns surrounding the current issue which is any Microsoft mandate requiring Secure Boot to be enabled on ARM hardware. In his most recent article he attributes FOSS Advocates concerns to nothing more than FUD and table pounding and he says “No currently shipping version of Linux or Android will run on it.” which I assume he means a Windows ARM Tablet if one where to exist but I think he is mistaken since Ubuntu runs on many ARM tablets on the market already.
I personally think the talk of Secure Boot being mandatory on ARM hardware that Microsoft ships Windows 8 on is anti-consumer because it limits the ability of the device owner to try and modify their device. Certainly there is hardware that just wont support Linux or Android but OEM’s should not feel pressured by Microsoft to lock down their devices and eliminate the possibility for other operating systems being installed.
How do you feel about the revelation that Microsoft might block other OS’s from ARM hardware they ship Windows 8 on?