Originally posted by SteveRiley
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Linux Foundation waiting for MS to issue UEFI key. :)
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Pan-Galactic QuordlepleenSo Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
- Jul 2011
- 9524
- Seattle, WA, USA
- Send PM
Sure! I might even be able to find one of those sharp-cornered plastic boxes that the Windows 7 DVD shipped in. Should make for an excellent frame, especially if you don't clean off the blood from your fingers
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
Steve:
The security problem that Secure Boot was designed to thwart isn't of sufficient threat to warrant the brittleness and rigidity of Secure Boot's design. So as a protective mesaure, the feature could be less restrictive and still accomplish something useful.
So, why all the fuss if we'll always be able to turn secure boot off, and run the distro we want?
Frank.Linux: Powerful, open, elegant. Its all I use.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by Frank616 View PostWhat I mean is that Canonical, Red Hat, SuSE, the Linux Foundation, and who knows who else are all looking for solutions to a problem that doesn't exist if the ability to turn off secure boot is written into UEFI. There must be something more here.
So, why all the fuss if we'll always be able to turn secure boot off, and run the distro we want?
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
Pan-Galactic QuordlepleenSo Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
- Jul 2011
- 9524
- Seattle, WA, USA
- Send PM
Originally posted by Frank616 View PostWhat I mean is that Canonical, Red Hat, SuSE, the Linux Foundation, and who knows who else are all looking for solutions to a problem that doesn't exist if the ability to turn off secure boot is written into UEFI. There must be something more here.
So, why all the fuss if we'll always be able to turn secure boot off, and run the distro we want?
Technical: Secure Boot is not uniformly a bad thing. Some people may find themselves in threat scenarios where Secure Boot becomes an appropriate defense. For Linux to unilaterally not support the feature would disqualify its use in those situations. A better fundamental design -- namely, supporting multiple signing roots -- would have made the entire hue and cry simply evaporate.
Philosophical: advising J. Random User to "disable that security feature to make Linux work" is, as you might imagine, something that would be greeted with skepticism if not outright disdain.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by SteveRiley View PostWait. Are you actually asking for "government endorsement" of something?
Alright...who the hell are you and what did you do with the real Snowhog?"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
– John F. Kennedy, February 26, 1962.
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
It should be mentioned that some OEMs implementations of UEFI are atrocious. However I suspect that will clear up as the howls of dispair are processed by their support people.
As for as Secure Boot is concerned when I get a motherboard that has it I'll disable it. I'm totally unworried about what I choose to boot on my machine.GigaByte GA-965G-DS3, Core2Duo at 2.1 GHz, 4 GB RAM, ASUS DRW-24B1ST, LiteOn iHAS 324 A, NVIDIA 7300 GS, 500 GB and 80 GB WD HDD
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by luckyone View PostIt should be mentioned that some OEMs implementations of UEFI are atrocious. However I suspect that will clear up as the howls of dispair are processed by their support people.
As for as Secure Boot is concerned when I get a motherboard that has it I'll disable it. I'm totally unworried about what I choose to boot on my machine.The unjust distribution of goods persists, creating a situation of social sin that cries out to Heaven and limits the possibilities of a fuller life for so many of our brothers. -- Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires (now Pope Francis)
- Top
- Bottom
Comment
Comment