On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 10:39 -0500, Leonid Isaev wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:35:16 +0200 > Thomas Bächler <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Am 23.06.2012 04:09, schrieb Manolo Martínez: > > > Is Arch going to sign [this > > > petition](http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement)? > > > I, for one humble user, would like it (us, whatever) to. > > > > > > Manolo > > > > While I won't answer your question, I have this to say: > > > > For a non-ARM PC to be certified for Windows 8, the EFI firmware MUST > > support Setup Mode. As this is a "MUST" requirement, everyone will > > fulfill it, as they really do want the Windows 8 logo (if anyone wants > > to look up the source for this, go ahead, I am too lazy right now). > > > > If I understand it right, in Setup Mode, you can either boot any > > non-signed operating system, or you can import your own keys into the > > firmware, so that you can sign your own bootloaders. For me, this is > > enough to not care about Secure Boot. > > > > Right. Or you can buy a key from Microsoft like Fedora is planning to > http://lwn.net/Articles/500231/. It's good that people are thinking about > this problem, but so far solutions have been quite ugly from a technical > standpoint. On a discussion at Debian users mailing list I started with "who cares, it doesn't have impact to us free OS users, as long as we don't plan to install Windoof 8 too", but I changed my opinion to "let's nuke down Microsoft, the most worse case scenario will happen". This is the pathetic overstated version, but it's near to what many people feel during this discussion. And I'm only speaking for Intel/AMD mobos ;). We already know, that UEFI can't be disabled for every hardware :(.
