88
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 May 2025
88 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
7354 readers
311 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system
Also check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Secure Boot is bullshit and for Microsofts illegitimate interests anyways.
Can you elaborate or throw me a link or two? Am not familiar with this.
People still hate secure boot because they thought it was designed to kill Linux. Really Linux distros just didn’t work with it right out of the box and it took a bit for them to play nicely. Buy that largely has been fixed for 10+ years at this point.
Really they’re just technological boomers. The “I hate change.” Mindset.
From what I've read, this is misleading. Default secureboot within Windows will only boot a bootloader signed with Microsoft's key. Although Microsoft does seem to provide a signing service for signing with their keys, this is at their mercy. Windows made a change that broke booting alternative operating systems unless they use a service that Windows provides to fix it, or disable secureboot.
Or maybe it's extra complexity that often leads to the first recommendation to fixing Linux not booting being "disable secureboot" and how this is an extra hurdle to jump through for new users. As well as increased likelihood of problems, due to secureboot.
So is it considered 'secure'? and to what extent?