Linux Foundation waiting for MS to issue UEFI key. :)

[tek_heretik]

...the worry that, at some point, Microsoft might again try strong-arm tactics to lock out alternate operating systems. Because the company has historically abused its position multiple times, such worries are not completely misplaced.

Can I print and frame that Steve?! heh

[SteveRiley]

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

[Frank616]

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.

What 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?

Frank.

[james147]

What 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?

Because they want a solution that users can use without needing to preconfigure their systems to work with... since not everyone will want or even know how to turn of secure boot and will likely just give up if the installer fails to boot.

[SteveRiley]

What 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?

Two reasons.

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.

[GreyGeek]

Wait. Are you actually asking for "government endorsement" of something?

Alright...who the hell are you and what did you do with the real Snowhog?

Indeed! Something's amiss!

[luckyone]

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.

[bsniadajewski]

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.

Same here. SB isn't anything I'll need fro the time being.