On: Ubuntu's Plans To Implement UEFI SecureBoot: No GRUB2

[jroll]

Does this mean it might be possible to install Ubuntu on ARM devices preloaded with Windows 8?

[abrowne → jroll]

No, only on Intel.

From the "Requirements for certifying Windows 8 systems" PDF available at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/windows/hardware/hh748188 :

    MANDATORY. On non-ARM systems, the platform MUST implement the ability for a physically present user to select between two Secure Boot modes in firmware setup: "Custom" and "Standard". Custom Mode allows for more flexibility as specified [...]

    On an ARM system, it is forbidden to enable Custom Mode. Only Standard Mode may be enabled.

[setrofim_ → abrowne]

    On an ARM system, it is forbidden to enable Custom Mode. Only Standard Mode may be enabled.

Does this mean that , on compliant ARM devices, only Windows 8 may be run? If so, how is this not anti-competitive?

[morsch → setrofim_]

If it is anti-competitive, then what? There's no Microsoft monopoly on ARM they could leverage, they own nothing of that market.

[setrofim_ → morsch]

I guess it depends how you define the market. One could argue that they're abusing their dominant position in "consumer operating system" market.

[gareim → morsch]

I thought it was that anti-competitive actions were illegal (or just heavily frowned upon?) and monopolies in and of themselves aren't bad, just if they abuse their power in an anti-competitive way.

[setrofim_ → gareim]

IIRC, it's basically has to be the combinations of the two. Monopolies aren't illegal in and of themselves. But neither are actions that may be deemed anti-competitive. It's only illegal when a monopoly (or a dominant player - doesn't have to be a monopoly) exploits its position to gain further advantage through anti-competitive actions.

[MichaelGG → abrowne]

How does that prevent a signed Ubuntu loader from running? Custom mode is to allow running differently-signed or unsigned loaders, right?