Geek-9pm keeps using the word "research". Google search results are a complement to systemic research- they are not the single means to an end. If we took that approach than we could "research" how the Earth is flat or how there was no moon landing or any number of things. Search results are not systemic. systemic research of the sort needed to invalidate the claims being made would require innumerable references to people who wrote about the topic who are relatively well versed in it. Search results to forum posts of other people having similar issues is not "research" because there is no attempt to reach a conclusion, instead you are buttressing an invalid point with equally invalid references to forum posts with a complete disregard for any facts of the matter.
In dependent research shows a large number of new Laptops will not boot Linux without major modification.
Ignoring, again, your lack of any systemics in your 'research' (plugging in a search query is not research, research would be understanding the underlying technologies). For example the difference between searching for "Can hard drives be used as sawblades" may very well give you results where individuals are discussing it and some person declares it is possible. That is not a reliable source.
Compare this to the alternative of instead researching hard drives themselves and, once equipped with that information, coming to a conclusion about the feasibility of the platters being used as sawblades. The difference is pretty big; one is taking a random stranger with no citable verification, evidence, or even qualifications at their word on a piece of information. The other is instead working backwards from technical specifics to evaluate the feasibility of the posed scenario. The difference is night and day.
In this specific case, "independent research" is looking into the specifics of UEFI, Secure boot, and how they function. Verification with a system using these technologies helps. It is not using Google and finding forum posts like the one we have here were somebody is having trouble installing Windows. Because asserting that the cause must be specific to Windows 8 or boot-time changes is just that- an assertion.
The reason we often find ourselves at odds on this is because you do not seem to take a proper systemic approach for "research". The internet is not a reliable source of information and you need to gather your information from multiple sources- and independent verification is exceedingly helpful as well. For example " large number of new Laptops will not boot Linux without major modification." is an assertion. You provide no information- you don't even provide a link so we can point out that somebody named XxXLinux_Fo_LyfeXxX on a teenage hacking forum is probably not the best source for this sort of information. It is on purpose. You have no provided a single specific model number of laptop system that requires "major modification" because there are no examples of that phenomena.
That is by design. That is NOT speculation or conjecture.
What a convincing argument. "I'm not speculating at all, my independent systemic research process just looks very similar to unverified post-hoc conclusions created from a jumble of vague google searches.
It has been documented elsewhere. These Laptops have Anti-Theft technology, which blocks any OS not registered from that machine.
Anybody with even the
slightest understanding of UEFI, Secure boot, and how they work can see right through this vague information and see that you have nothing. "There is information online" and "it has been documented elsewhere" and "this is not speculation" are
weasel words. (Except the last one, that's just funny). It's 'documented' elsewhere. By whom? Can we independently verify their results? have others independently verified their results? do their assertions and claims
make sense to people who have an understanding of UEFI and Secure boot and how they work?
For example:
These Laptops have Anti-Theft technology, which blocks any OS not registered from that machine.
First- what laptops? any specific model numbers? Again, you are being vague on purpose.
Second: What Anti-Theft technology? the only thing that fits the "blocks any OS not registered from that machine" would probably be secure boot, but that is only possible with such an atrophied and false understanding what secure boot is I wouldn't even be willing to consider that to be what you refer to. Secure Boot is a UEFI extension that requires the boot executables stored on the UEFI partition to be code-signed. general-purpose PCs will allow the addition and changing of authentication certificates within the BIOS setup, and also allow the feature to be disabled if desired. Only certain types of mobile devices are designed in such a way that Secure Boot cannot be shut off- but those systems exist in the same ecosystem as iOS and Android, where these limitations are pretty much a given. A "source" for this information would be any number of documents released by UEFI.org, such as
this one which covers the use of Secure Boot to prevent rootkits and malware infections or other unauthorized changes to the boot executable on the UEFI partition, as well as the
UEFI specifications Themselves.
If your "independent research" finds forum posts or information that imply systems work in a way that is not consistent with the operation specified in those documents, Then those systems are either not following the specification properly (Unlikely) or, the claim is wrong.
