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

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

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:26:55 +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:
>> Hello Camaleón,
>> Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> If you don’t need that, you can disable secure boot and be happy.
> I won't be happy seeing my distribution going towards the steps of
> another company just becasue it has the majority of the OS desktop market
> share, whatever that company is named.
>> However, I welcome the fact that attacks on Windows will be made more
>> difficult, since that also means smaller botnets, fewer vulnerable
>> computers etc.
> That's the problem: we don't have to care about Windows security, it's
> not our business! That's a problem for the Windows users not for us.

If you don't care about Windows security then just turn off secure
boot.  You're running Debian to begin with.  I'm sure you can figure
it out.  You're a technical person.  UEFI secure boot was *not
developed to benefit Microsoft*.  Microsoft's only involvement here is
being a 3rd party player who has a code signing key.  They are acting
no differently than any other generic certificate authority here.  You
just irrationally hate the company.


Reply to: