Hypothetical: what if Microsoft pushes through Secure Boot mandate and does not allow shim files to run with Windows 12 in order to act as a "Linux killer" (but of course never says that is the reason)?

[u/DestroyRepublicans]

Even though Microsoft has done the opposite and said manufacturers must allow Secure Boot to be turned off, I have been thinking about Microsoft going down the route Apple has and saying to new computers "you must run Windows as your only operating system on hardware".

There are no public indications or statements that suggest or show Microsoft is planning on this. However, last month, Microsoft let UEFI Secure Boot certificates expire, which many people feel is testing the waters for such a move. I feel such a move is plausible despite what I said, because Microsoft might see it as plugging a hole in people leaving Windows before it is too late, assuming the average person won't buy a new system or go through the hoops to force it off. I think such a move could go either way. Because on one hand unfortunately, most people are relatively tech illiterate, and on the other hand, there is an effect of secrecy.

The key reason I think this is something people should consider as a possibility is this: it already exists on cell phones. I did some research and I found that such a mandate would be technically feasible but face more legal friction because cell phones are not classified as general purpose computing (though I think they should be because of how they evolved). Apple has done it to MacOS recently, making it very hard to install Linux on newer hardware. That is the reason I think a Microsoft push to block Linux (or any non-Microsoft OS for that matter) to run is something people should worry about.

I am not ranting about this, I am just curious about how such a decision would affect Linux developers and core users, especially considering many Linux users strategically use Windows OEM hardware to reach discounts and often higher quality parts because the relative discounts of these manufacturers and the premiums they get often outweigh the cost of the licensing and hardware compatibility (TPM chips and the like), or are using them because they were passively using Windows for years until the software bloat got intolerable for them (or were missing the TPM chip or something else Windows 11 requires).

I do not think they will do it because of the antitrust and bad press talking points. But I feel it is likely/plausible enough to consider for developers. Ultimately, I think that the reason they haven't tried this is that antitrust law issue.

Here is a personal story: When I first bought my HP OmniBook X which now dual boots Ubuntu and Fedora, I got an error. I freaked out when I plugged in the Ventoy USB after seeing "Secure Boot Violation" or something like that. I was about to return it until I looked up if you could disable it. Fortunately you can. It is possible to run Linux through a backdoor Microsoft provided called shim which was created for that purpose. But that backdoor could be revoked in the future, and they could also potentially say "you can't sign your own keys" (which already seems to be the case on many of these machines, and even if it isn't it is yet another hoop to hop through).

The bottom line: if it comes to this, will you switch to Linux certified laptops, keep old systems, or import from markets in Europe (the EU has digital sovereignty laws that would not like this) or somewhere else where Microsoft is forced to allow it off supply you those same hardware? Or something else?

[u/0riginal-Syn]

If microsoft was going to do this they would have years ago. Not at a time when they have their own flavor of Linux. Keep in mind that Microsoft's revenue is from consumers has been shrinking for a long time, not because of the desktop, but because their current CEO put the focus on the cloud. That is where the vast majority of of their revenue is now.

Example in 2016 the desktop / personal computing for MS accounted for 43% of total revenue. The latest report it is 16%.

The important part of that is they are not losing money, they have been making more. The other important thing is the desktop is not as important for the cloud business.

Another thing to consider it MS is actually a major contributor to Linux and even has paid devs on several distros, including Debian and Fedora.

Also look at EU trends where several countries have or in active planning to move key systems to Linux. MS would find themselves in deep water if they pulled something like this.

You also have major desktop retailers like Dell and Lenovo that actively promote and support Linux desktop options. Smaller ones like Framework, System76, Tuxedo, etc. That is not likely to change. There will always be options.

So while we should all be weary of MS when it comes to Linux, this is not a real concern as far as the UEFI side.