Re: the ghost of UEFI and Micr0$0ft
"Christofer C. Bell" <email@example.com> writes:
>> 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.
Er, except that MS is one of the main parties pushing this ...
> You can't disable the code signing requirement on ARM.
... which is a great deal more worrying.
>From that thread, I got the impression that they actually pushed this
requirement ("signing cannot be disabled by user").
Is this even _legal_...? Surely that kind of thing is much more
likely to run afoul of antitrust laws etc.
Advice, n. The smallest current coin.