Ah, only the dozenth time this has happened and been fixed....
I'm sure Microsoft doesn't do it on purpose all the time!
this post was submitted on 16 May 2025
89 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
13631 readers
815 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Was about to comment that. I'm never trusting dual boot with Windows installed.
Secure Boot is bullshit and for Microsofts illegitimate interests anyways.
Can you elaborate or throw me a link or two? Am not familiar with this.
People still hate secure boot because they thought it was designed to kill Linux. Really Linux distros just didn’t work with it right out of the box and it took a bit for them to play nicely. Buy that largely has been fixed for 10+ years at this point.
Really they’re just technological boomers. The “I hate change.” Mindset.
Really Linux distros just didn’t work with it right out of the box...
From what I've read, this is misleading. Default secureboot within Windows will only boot a bootloader signed with Microsoft's key. Although Microsoft does seem to provide a signing service for signing with their keys, this is at their mercy. Windows made a change that broke booting alternative operating systems unless they use a service that Windows provides to fix it, or disable secureboot.
The “I hate change.” Mindset.
Or maybe it's extra complexity that often leads to the first recommendation to fixing Linux not booting being "disable secureboot" and how this is an extra hurdle to jump through for new users. As well as increased likelihood of problems, due to secureboot.
So is it considered 'secure'? and to what extent?
Too late MS, I have already deleted your partition...
And recreated the partition table which you so kindly made with badly aligned sectors.
No worries I'm sure that in 6 months another update will whoopsie poopsie totally accidentally put that bug back again