On 06/04/2012 05:03 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
JD writes:
I lost you guy!
I mean I do not understand how the creation of a single linux distro
signature authority for all linuxes, undermines whatever MS does to
secure it's OS.
Are the two necessarily mutually exclusive (i.e. they cannot both be
used on
dual or milti-boot systems?
This has been explained in this thread before.
It is logically impossible to have a so-called "secure-boot" for both
a free OS and a non-free OS on the same platform. Since, by
definition, a free OS allows unrestricted access to the hardware, a
free OS can then be trivially used to bypass any secure boot hardware
restrictions for a non-free OS.
Secure boot is worthless to Microsoft, if Linux is able to use it.
This is a provable fact. Therefore, no matter what the current drivel
in Microsoft's published literature says right now, Linux will be
denied access to "secure boot" hardware, in its final form. Microsoft
will make sure of that.
OK, I see what you were driving at.
Does this mean that there will be NO pc desktops and laptops
that will still let people boot Linux or BSD and their various
branches?
So, I think this really makes the creation of a single Linux/BSD
authority for providing secure boot HW to boot Linux, and which
will NOT not boot MS, becomes more and more desire-able.
Sort of like tit-for-tat.
--
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
