Re: the ghost of UEFI and Micr0$0ft
On 6/5/2012 10:43 PM, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Nate Bargmann<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Again, let MS rot in its malware hell. I don't care! Perhaps if MS had
been a bit more proactive a couple of decades ago we would not be having
this discussion. MSFT issues are not for us in the Debian or wider
Linux community to resolve.
Comments like this make you look like a tool. Microsoft is acting as
as nothing more than a certificate authority here. This has jack and
all to do with MS Windows.
If need be, community oriented hardware based on ARM and such will
become the order of the day for general purpose computer. Consumer
hardware is being made off-limits to the hobbyist.
You can't disable the code signing requirement on ARM.
Here's an interesting point. I take this verbatim from the Wiki:
"UEFI requires the firmware and operating system to be size-matched;
i.e. a 64-bit UEFI implementation can only boot a 64-bit UEFI operating
Maybe MS has finally figured out a way to get rid of all those myriad
XP-32 systems that have stubbornly refused upgrading. Just about all
modern mobos are 64-bit. And, altho I believe that 64-bit versions of
XP exist, I'd guess there are very few of them in the field.
Kill two birds with one stone--force zillions of people to buy a new MS
os, which will be Win8, soon to be hated as much or more than Vista,
I'll bet--and make it more difficult for people to use anything else.
Big bucks, there!
This is not good news for the Linux distros that don't have 64-bit
versions--my favorite PCLOS, is one at present. (Altho I have a fairly
and don't intend to change it any time soon.)