Re: [OT] Re: the ghost of UEFI and Micr0$0ft
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 5:04 PM, ACro <acro@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
My hypothetical friends won't be thinking of Microsoft when they
decide that they don't want to turn Secure Boot off. They'll just see
it as lessening or disabling security on their computer, full-stop.
Microsoft's marketing's eventually going to force Secure Boot on
many/most/all; and it'll end up being compulsory and impossible to
turn off.
Consider banking. On the server-side, Secure Boot'll make it into the
security audit checklists and will have to be used on Linux boxes. On
the client-side, assuming that there's a secure way for an OS to
advertise that it was booted via Secure Boot, the latter'll become
compulsory for internet banking.
Not a pretty picture but an entirely possible and plausible one...
Reply to: