On 06/01/2012 09:15 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
Now a signed bootloader has its uses, however in a properly designed system you would allow the user to import their own keys.
If it goes banana, I'm pretty confident this will be required by law in most sane countries. There are good organizations of activists out there, and even some who seek a new purpose[0]. Well, that's a good one right there.
I don't think we're that lost yet. I hope I'm not being naive, and you're certainly right in that we should watch this closely and shout loudly if it doesn't go in the right direction. We should not, however, give up already.
Even if this goes extremely bad, firmwares will be hacked. The tech world always goes on with technical solutions, whether the politics follow or not. I mean this thing affects *everyone*, it's not a lost fight.
I am sure MS will use this for the Windows 9 era to say "See secure boot works for everyone, now make it mandatory". Matthew Garrett unintentionally just gave them everything they needed to continue that plan.
I think that's a little fallacious and a big shortcut. Well, my opinion on that is in another post of this thread already, should you want to read it.
Alan
[0] http://video.fosdem.org/2012/maintracks/janson/A_New_OSI_for_A_New_Decade.webm
-- t -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
