Re: the ghost of UEFI and Micr0$0ft
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Nate Bargmann <email@example.com> wrote:
> * On 2012 05 Jun 21:45 -0500, 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.
> I'd much rather be a "tool" standing up for computing freedom than a
> lacky buying into the marketing spin.
Please articulate what freedoms, exactly, you're losing through the
availability of UEFI secure boot (a feature you are in no way
compelled to use).
>> > 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.
> Really? So the Raspberry Pi requires signed code? The Freedom Box
> on ARM hardware requires signed code?
Secure boot is about future devices, not current ones. Your comments
thus far indicate you've made no effort to educate yourself about the
issues. On ARM devices that support secure boot, it cannot be
disabled like it can on a PC.