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

Re: the ghost of UEFI and Micr0$0ft

"Christofer C. Bell" <christofer.c.bell@gmail.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.

Reply to: