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

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

On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 21:37:31 -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:


>>>> Repeat with me: we-don't-need-Windows-anymore.
> This has absolutely *nothing* to do with a dependency on Windows.

Yes, it is. And more specifically with Windows 8.

>> 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.
> Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to do anything.  They're saying, "if you
> want to put the Windows 8 logo on your hardware, you must enforce
> trusted boot."  No one else has to use it, however, PC manufacturers are
> likely to, you know, enforce secure boot which means Linux *won't* boot
> unless it's either signed or secure boot is disabled.  You're completely
> free to not use secure boot if you don't want to.

You seems to ignore that MS Windows comes pre-installed on almost every 
single computer sold in this planet (okay, let's say ~95% of the desktop 
oriented market). I don't know how you call that but to me eyes that's 
not what I see it a "fair status" for the rest of the software 
manufacturers: if you want to sell your hardware you'll have to put 
windows on it. I'd like to see policies aimed to change this situation.

>> We are who decide what/how/when we need something not the others and
>> even less MS :-/
> Yes, and you're free to decide you don't need secure boot and to disable
> it at your option.  If you can't figure out how, I'm sure your PC or
> motherboard will come with documentation that can help.

Yes, that's the idea, so why caring about their secure boot at all? We 
should recommend *our* users that they simply disable that feature if 
they want to dual boot their computers, right?

>> The price to pay here is more than a few pennies: there's a freedom
>> price.
> There is absolutely zero price anyone needs to pay.  Fedora is
> purchasing a key from a trusted 3rd party to sign their own code with so
> it can work with secure boot UEFI out of the box with a minimum of
> hassle.  They're buying a convenience, not something that's at all
> required.

They're buying _your_ freedom and mine is priceless.

>> I value ideas and the good work more than money; they're priceless.
> Your rant against UEFI secure boot, Fedora, and Microsoft smells an
> awful lot like "I just hate Microsoft just because I hate them and
> they're evil and I hate them" than it does any kind of reasoned
> technical objection.

Sorry sir but you completely miss the point. I'm not "ranting" against 
UEFI nor secure boot nor Fedora nor MS but exposing my POV about how is 
the FLOSS community handling this situation.

And forget that "MS-hate" you speak about, it does not go with me :-)

>> UEFI is not the problem here. People is using UEFI nowadays without any
>> issue. Is MS who is building a fictional wall in between.
> People are using UEFI just fine without secure boot.  Secure boot is a
> new feature that requires signed code to work.  You're free to not use
> it.  The rest of us feel it's beneficial.  There's no artificial wall.
>  You just hate Microsoft.

And you're wrong, again. 

I hate the way a company is treating something that involves another 
companies and users becasue they're acting as if there were no other 
operating systems in the world. If you can't or don't want understand 
what MS is doing with this, I can't be of any help. 

Finally, I can't but fully agree with FSF position in this regard:




Reply to: