[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [OT] Re: the ghost of UEFI and Micr0$0ft

Hello Camaleón,

Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:
> For years, we've (the FLOSS community) been avoinding to be always 
> Windows dependant and now it seems we are going back to the darkest ages.
> Repeat with me: we-don't-need-Windows-anymore.

This does not depend on Windows but on something else: A position
that is trusted by users and hardware manufacturers to only sign
‘safe’ code. Given that this makes it necessary to audit the code,
watch out if it gets exploited, set up a system to revoke
certificates etc., $99 really is cheap. I doubt that someone else
could do the same job cheaper, if they don’t have another source of

> I'm a bit tired of being so condescending with Microsoft or 
> Apple or Oracle... or other companies policies. How about our needings?

Found your own company or buy them and I’ll guarantee that they’ll do
just as you like.

> >> (since when blindly following what
> >> Microsoft -or any other company- does is the correct way to achieve a
> >> milestone?)
> > 
> > Given the aforementioned blog post, I doubt that this happened
> > ‘blindly’.
> "Blindly" here means there's no technical reason that supports the path 
> they want to take for UEFI, but a marketing strategy.

UEFI has many benefits over the traditional BIOS, secure boot being
one of them. Why do you think there is no technical reason to support
secure boot? And what other mechanism would you suggest to use to get
a chain of trust from the BIOS(-replacement) to the desktop?

Best regards,

Specifications subject to change without notice.
http://chubig.net                          telnet nightfall.org 4242

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: