On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Yasha Karant wrote:

> To be specific, my colleague is using the licensed-for-free binary
> download of current OpenSuSE that nominally supports UEFI Secure Boot --
> and it does not work in fact on the hardware he has.  He did experiment
> with a licensed copy of MS Win 8, and it would install on the same
> platform without this issue (but absolutely is not what he wants or is
> willing to use as a primary -- non-Virtual-Box running under -- OS.

Did your colleague discuss these issues with the "hardware vendor" to make 
sure what he was doing was correct?  Did he research/contact  OpenSuSE 
about his  secure boot issues?

-connie sieh

   >
> On 09/24/2013 09:55 AM, Connie Sieh wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Yasha Karant wrote:
>>
>>> This thread started because my colleague is using SuSE and tried Ubuntu
>>> -- and both failed to secure boot properly from the generic hardware to
>>> which he upgraded.  This failure prompted a question about SL (as a
>>> no-fee option for a TUV enterprise, commercial, supported, production
>>> Linux base).
>>>
>>> Evidently, the current answer for SL is that it is not UEFI Secure Boot
>>> enabled, and SL 6x cannot reliably be installed upon such systems --
>>> depending upon the quirks (or proprietary generosity) of the actual BIOS
>>> supplier.
>>
>> OpenSuSE supports "secure boot" not SuSE as I stated earlier.
>>
>> I am sure it is only "recent" versions of OpenSuSE, Fedora and Ubuntu
>> that support 'secure boot".
>>
>> See the following for more info.  In particular pages 12 and 17.  There
>> are references to youtube videos on page 18 showing Windows 8 dual
>> booting with Ubuntu 12.10 .
>>
>> http://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/LinuxConUEFIandLinuxBresniker.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>> It is efi compliant.  If the bios vendor does not allow "secure boot" to
>> be turned off then one should "converse" with said vendor.
>>
>> -connie sieh
>>>
>>> Yasha Karant
>>>
>>> On 09/24/2013 09:04 AM, Connie Sieh wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Yasha Karant wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Secure boot is enabled.  Evidently, the only means to disable secure
>>>>> boot requires that a secure boot loader/configuration program be
>>>>> running
>>>>> -- e.g., the MS proprietary boot loader (typically, supplied as part of
>>>>> MS Windows 8) must be used to disable secure boat if the UEFI actually
>>>>> permits this to be disabled (I have heard of some UEFI implementations
>>>>> that do not permit secure boot truly to be disabled).
>>>>
>>>> If the system is Windows 8 logo compatible and is x86_4 then a way to
>>>> disable "secure boot" must be provided by the hardware vendor.  This is
>>>> commonly done via a option in the "bios".  This requirement is part of
>>>> the "microsoft windows 8 logo requirements".  Note the method of
>>>> disabling is not defined by the UEFI spec.  So each vendor may do it
>>>> differently.
>>>>
>>>> The only hardware that does not permit "secure boot" to be disabled is
>>>> arm based Windows.  The Windows logo requirements at at work here.
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>> If Linux cannot handle this issue, then Linux is finished on all
>>>>> generic
>>>>> (e.g., not Apple that supplies both the hardware and operating
>>>>> environment software under a restrictive proprietary for-profit
>>>>> intellectual property license) X86-64 hardware, as (almost?) all
>>>>> current
>>>>> such hardware is MS 8 (UEFI secure boot) compliant.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At the moment Fedora, SuSE , Ubuntu all can handle "secure boot".  It is
>>>> expected that RHEL 7 will also handle it.  It is also possible to "sign"
>>>> your own kernel and place your keys in the "bios".
>>>>
>>>> -connie
>>>>
>>>>> Yasha Karant
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/23/2013 10:29 PM, Connie Sieh wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Yasha Karant wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A colleague who uses SuSE non-enterprise for his professional
>>>>>>> (enterprise) workstations has now attempted to load the latest SuSE
>>>>>>> on a
>>>>>>> machine with a new generic (aftermarket) "gamer" UEFI  X86-64
>>>>>>> motherboard.  It does not properly boot.  I do not have any UEFI
>>>>>>> motherboards, and thus no experience with SL6x on such motherboards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is "secure boot" enabled in the UEFI ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does anyone?  Does SL6x boot correctly (and easily) on a UEFI
>>>>>>> motherboard?  If so, he may switch to SL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes as long as "secure boot" is disabled .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yasha Karant
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -connie sieh
>>>>>
>>>
>