JD writes:
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 distrosignature 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?
Microsoft will certainly want to do everything to make that happen, of course. That's a no brainer.
But, whether or not this will happen, remains to be seen.
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.
There's certainly a lot of money in server-level hardware that runs Linux. I don't see anything that Microsoft could possibly do about it.
Possibly, in the worst case, in a distant future it will be a little bit difficult to find consumer-grade hardware, like laptops, which have the necessary bits – either a switch to disable secure boot, or an easy way to install the right keys – to run Linux. That's the worst possible outcome that I could see. But, that's not a given, and there's no guarantee that Microsoft will succeed in locking down the consumer hardware platform.
It goes without saying that everything must be done to thwart this thread of free and open hardware. But paying someone $99 for a certificate is not how you go about fighting this thing.
Attachment:
pgpt5cgADh1qe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 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
