On 4 June 2012 22:27, Sudaraka Wijesinghe <sudaraka.wijesinghe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06/04/12 23:48, Genes MailLists wrote: >> >> Just to add another fedora link: >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pjones/Features/SecureBoot >> >> Sounds like they till plan to make use of the UEFI CA $99 signing >> service from Microsoft. >> >> Do you think Arch should follow suit or require instead that Secure >> Boot is disabled? >> >> gene/ >> > > If this is a poll, I vote "Arch should require Secure Boot to be disabled" > > I choose a distro like Arch because it doesn't have a financial motive > and will not give into market pressures such as this. > If we want keep hardware vendors from forcing Secure Boot on us, we have > to send the message out that we don't want it. Paying a "small" price of > M$99 is not the way. > > However as free software users, we will have to endure some hard time in > the coming days when getting new hardware. > > Just my two cents. > > Sudaraka. > I'd like to add something to what Sudaraka said: Arch doesn't seems to have the same kind of user than fedora, Arch if I don't remember it wrong, tends to be aimed for a competent user. Such a competent user can disable secure boot in x86 devices. (ARM devices doesn't seem a problem to Arch because we don't do ARM) Just my two cents. Alexandre
