dual booting Ubuntu 13.04 and Windows 7

[Tom H]

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28 May 2013 16:51, Basil Chupin <blchupin at iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> Correct me if I am wrong but Win 7 does not require UEFI, even if the mobo
>> has UEFI; Win 8 on the other hand probably does require UEFI to function.
>>
>> Both my computer and my wife's have UEFI motherboards but UEFI is turned
>> off.
>
> You're wrong.
>
> UEFI is a kind of motherboard firmware. It is a hardware feature. No
> version of Windows or Linux *requires* it. Windows 7 and 8 both
> support it natively; older versions require the UEFI to have legacy
> BIOS emulation.
>
> It is the norm on Itanium (IA64) systems. It is becoming normal with
> x86-64 systems now. Part of this is that MS *require* system builders
> to use it to get the marketing sticker that says "compatible with
> Windows 8". This requires UEFI and its "Secure Boot feature" which
> requires code-signing on OS boot loaders.
>
> I personally think that this is anti-competitive behaviour by MS,
> attempting to prevent vendors shipping Linux or users installing it.
>
> It is only "required" for MS marketing & promotional purposes, nothing else.

I seem to be permanently disagreeing with posters in this thread. :(

Secure Boot's purpose is to defeat bootkits. Whether it's a good
design and whether it'll resist attempts to break it is beyond my
level of expertise; I have to trust those involved in developing and
applying the specs are experts in this field and have done the
necessary.

If Secure Boot is a ploy to restrict competition, it's a pretty lame
one given how easy (from a user's perspective!) it is to use Linux
with Secure Boot enabled.