UEFI, the secure boot, could be an opportunity for Linux

[frish]

There must be a limit to what an average user is willing to tolerate.
I can imagine future, where new hardware will be labeled "Linux friendly' or 'MS friendly'. It would be end of dual boot, but a boost for free software. BUT.
For that to happen, Linux, and I mean Ubuntu family in particular,
would have to change. Change fundamentally - its whole philosophy and mode of operation.
When I started with Ubuntu, in times of Breezy Badger, MS windows was known for its 'blue screen of death' and Linux was solid. Like a rock. It required some effort and skill, but it was robust and SIMPLE.
BUT, times has changed.

Installing later releases Ubuntu, I have this old joke popping into my mind. Before the Berlin Wall fell, it was popular in the communistic countries as they were called in the west. They called themselves socialistic countries. Communism was something they were building, before they changed their mind. Anyway, the joke goes like this:
Joe dies and goes to heaven. However, at the gate st. Peter looks into a book and says: I have bad news and good news for you.
"Bad news is that you are not going to heaven but to the hell. Good news is that you can choose: capitalistic hell or socialistic hell. Which one do you want?"
Joe scratches had and says "What's the difference?".
"Well, in capitalistic hell they boil you in the hot oil and prick you with pins. In socialistic hell they prick you with pins and boil you in oil" explained St. Peter.
"That is an easy choice", Joe said : "you know St,Peter how it is under socialism: Sometimes there is no oil, other times, no pins. I want to go to socialistic hell".

It was like that with recent releases in the Ubuntu family. Sometimes there is no sound, other times all browsers get caught in near-infinite loops, and so on.

Ubuntu did a lot for the Open software, but alas. Mark S. is not immune to disease of past great leaders. With 10+ million followers, he is now looking for world domination:
"By the time Ubuntu 14.04 LTS (long term support) rolls around, it is hoped that the core work on 13.04 will allow Canonical to produce an OS that runs equally well on laptops, desktops, smart-phones, tablets, and TVs..." I would not want live in a world like that.

Unfazed by mass defections from Unity our leader is preparing for his Waterloo. I escaped in time (knowing that regimes tend to close the border) and went wandering trough the family: Kubuntu has not on;y "it's own word for everything", but even it's own application.
BUT
we do not want new and 'better' applications and interfaces.
Who needs another browser, file manager .. We want
the old applications to work. Reliably, robustly, out of the CD.
(By 'we' I do not imply 'we, the people', just one of the people, and perhaps somebody will second this?)

[hazel]

When I started with Ubuntu, in times of Breezy Badger, MS windows was known for its 'blue screen of death' and Linux was solid. Like a rock. It required some effort and skill, but it was robust and SIMPLE... we do not want new and 'better' applications and interfaces... We want
the old applications to work. Reliably, robustly, out of the CD.
(By 'we' I do not imply 'we, the people', just one of the people, and perhaps somebody will second this?)

You can still get simplicity if you go for the right distro: Arch, Crux, Slackware to name but three. Or do a minimal net-install of Debian and then only install what you want to on top of that.

The difference between Ubuntu and Windows is that you don't have to stick with Ubuntu if you don't like it; you have plenty of alternatives in Linux and the transition is easy. There's no alternative to Windows except Linux and for many people that's too big a jump.

[cousinlucky]

I have not used many Linux distros since getting away from windows xp. I like Suse 10 and Ubuntu 8 because
even a complete computer know nothing, such as myself, could easily use them. Mint and some of the other
linux distros are not meant for old dial up computers like mine. I use Antix 12 for my email and the discontinued
PCLinuxOS gnome 2010 for my pictures and websites and I am quite happy. Bigger and Newer is not always
the best way to go for every computer user. In today's economy new computers are a luxury that not
everyone can afford.

[frish]

You can still get simplicity if you go for the right distro: Arch, Crux, Slackware to name but three. Or do a minimal net-install of Debian and then only install what you want to on top of that.

I am not tempted by Windows. One reason I am running away from Unity and whole gnome3 is that they feel like Windows.I am calling for more strict standards and beta testing before each release. There are so many distros, I cannot try them all.
I installed Xubuntu, and after few days I increased number of workspaces from 2 to 4. After that, it refused to boot. Xsession-errors were saying: Cannot determine number of workspaces. Things like that should not happen.
Is there a sire which lists such problems for each distro?
I do not see that bug-tracking is helpful in this.

[Miven]

As for UEFI, I don't know. It sounds to me like just another bunch of middle-men trying to force everyone to upgrade stuff that already works. I see nothing wrong with BIOS. The only times I've had to tinker with it in the last 10 years was to change the boot order. Maybe jot down some info that a kernel module needed.

What I see with UEFI is that now you'll have to have a UEFI compliant OS or the machine won't even boot.

To quote the website:

Technical Information

Additional UEFI test tools are available in the Members Only area.

Members Only? Give me a break. What is it? A pr0n site?

The *only* trouble with linux is that some people are still scared of it cutting into their profits.

If there were some guarantee that linux could be UEFI compliant, I wouldn't have these worries, but I'm afraid that we'd be left in the dark because we don't have the money to buy their "UEFI test tools" or whatever they're selling.

I'm looking at UEFI_2_3_1_Errata_C_final.pdf right now. What I'm seeing is that, according to the UEFI model, every PC comes equipped with it's own little OS that abstracts the need to dig into the hardware. Maybe the things never really need to boot.

Sounds pretty cool. I've always thought that every PC should have some _very_ rudimentary OS on it that takes care of the gnarly hardware issues, and I just slap my favorite flavor of GUI on top of it, without having to grub around with obscure kernel modules. I like the idea, I just don't know how it would work in reality.

They say they're already shipping some of these. Has anyone run across one of them?

[frish]

FIRSTLY this::
Additional UEFI test tools are available in the Members Only area.
is not my doing. This forum has lame way of fighting Spam by messing up
URLs in contributions of new members.
SECONDLY, this:
"The *only* trouble with Linux is that some people are still scared of it cutting into their profits"
seems to me pretty obvious BUT
it is not only trouble. Other trouble is that Linux is not reliable
any more - or at least -- one does not know which distro is reliable.

I spend few days selecting a distro other then Ubuntu (to escape UNITY
which really is not easy or possible to delete) and selected Xubuntu.
I like the simple, clean, "cubist" look.
After I put in all custom tweaks I discovered that it SOMETIMES HANGS UP. Not often, so I am living with it -- but THERE WAS NO ADVANCE WARNING.

IF we (Linux community) stop re-inventing invented and chasing the latest, and channel that energy into making at least one DISTRO
RELIABLE and giving user OPTION at load-time to select gnome/Kubuntu/xfce etc instead of herding him to UNITY, we ca make the UEFI to backfire on the cartel.
Ordinary people may then select hardware with 'Linux friendly' logo
instead of UEFI logo.

RE YOUR QUESTION Miven: YES. Is not wmware doing that?

[Miven]

Additional UEFI test tools are available in the Members Only area.
is not my doing. This forum has lame way of fighting Spam by messing up URLs in contributions of new members.

Sorry, that was the UEFI website I was quoting. I should have been more clear about that.

BTW The UEFI specification manual is 2224 pages long.

And yes, it does seem that linux distros have scattered in so many directions, all re-inventing the wheel in their own way, it seems that everything I run across is half-built with a nice coat of paint.

[elija]

IF we (Linux community) stop re-inventing invented and chasing the latest, and channel that energy into making at least one DISTRO
RELIABLE and giving user OPTION at load-time to select gnome/Kubuntu/xfce etc instead of herding him to UNITY, we ca make the UEFI to backfire on the cartel.

It sounds like PC-BSD may be of interest to you. Is it perfect? nope but it pretty damn good and meets most of your requirements. Quite a learning curve even if you are used to Linux though