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

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

On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:03:54 +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:

> 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.

Microsoft (I can't tell for the rest of the hardware manufacturers 
because their position is not mentioned in detail in the blog post) is 
forcing a needing for something I (and I guess others) _don't need_, like 
TPM modules, using a password in GRUB2, using encryption nor signing for 
safe code. 

We are who decide what/how/when we need something not the others and even 
less MS :-/

> 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 income.

The price to pay here is more than a few pennies: there's a freedom price.

>> 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.

I value ideas and the good work more than money; they're priceless.

>> >> (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?

UEFI is not the problem here. People is using UEFI nowadays without any 
issue. Is MS who is building a fictional wall in between.



Reply to: