Re: the ghost of UEFI and Micr0$0ft
* On 2012 05 Jun 23:04 -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> 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).
Let's not blindly assume that all hardware manufacturers will follow
the spec and *allow* disabling of secure boot. It's obvious from the
discussion that they will have the option of not enabling a non secure
boot. The point I and others are making is that MSFT has a long record
of engaging the hardware manufacturers in contracts whose terms are
apparently rather interesting. There is no guarantee that being able to
disable secure boot will be available in future products. I'm sure it
will be available at first just to quell the fear, but the manufacturers
will discover some "sound reasoning" a few years hence as to why
eliminating the BIOS option is necessary.
It's quite possible that everyone in this endeavor is working with the
best interests of the users in mind. It would be a first, but given the
long track record of this industry, I'm not holding my breath.
> 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.
That's twice you've swerved into ad hominem. If I were uneducated about
the issues at hand, I would be rather accepting of what is being placed
on my plate. As I am championing the right of myself and others to boot
the code of our choice on the hardware of our choice, pragmatism is not
a reasonable response.
> On ARM devices that support secure boot, it cannot be disabled like it
> can on a PC.
Ahhh, now a qualifier. So it's not a requirement of the ARM processor
then, and my comment about community derived ARM hardware being our
future stands true?
I'm only concerned about being able to continue to enjoy general purpose
computing and programming on my terms. I can see this leading to a
"secure" certificate being required to sign everything from boot to
logging onto the Internet where only "approved secure" software may be
used, to a place where compilers and interpreters--anything that can be
used to write executable/interpreted code--must be likewise signed and
part of a verified chain of "trust". All to prevent "malware", you see.
Hobbyists and Free Software as we've known it will have no place in this
brave new world. This strikes me as much like DRM the content studios
have been pushing for several years.
- Nate >>
--
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."
Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us
Reply to: