[OT] Re: the ghost of UEFI and Micr0$0ft
I won't send them a gift but if Fedora's the only distribution to
support Secure Boot, then it's the only one that I'll recommend to
friends (independently from installing and providing support for
Debian servers at some of my jobs) because I don't want to have to
tell them "to install Linux or even test Linux from a CD without
installing it, I'll have to turn off 'Secure Boot' on your computer";
they'll most likely say "no" anyway after hearing that.
of course you don't have to tell it them *this* way: yours is just
sounding as the perfect marketing argument pro MS: «You don't want to
turn your computer insecure, right?». It's too funny that this kind of
reasoning is turning (from your friends' point of view) the *real
security* concept upside down: Windows mimics the secure-OS part :-)
forcing other OSs to bow to it, whereas Debian is thought to be the
insecure one. This is clearly made possible because of power and money,
not trust and freedom.
Please note also that, forcing this "secure boot" thing, MS is evidently
trying to monopolize the "security" concept, making it a MS-related
term, putting -again- marketing before facts. Not fair at all - again.
All the best,