On 06/25/2012 07:44 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 19:24 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 25.06.2012 18:37, schrieb Kevin Chadwick:
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.
I didn't know key replacement was a requirement for MS certification.
That's better than I thought, however.
You can only have one key and so it's a barrier to competition via
preventing trying out other OS's on a whim!!. To multiboot you have to
pay and spend a lot of time. Having authorisation to disable it
completely but not import multiple keys simply doesn't make sense.
I don't think so. I need to verify this, but if I remember right, you
can simply sign Microsoft's key so Windows 8 is also trusted by your own
key.
Pff, I need to build my own kernels, to optimize to my needs and*I won't
care about a boot-boot-loader or any singing.* Ok, I don't have any
Windows installed (*excepted of XP on Arch on VBox*) and I won't install
Windoof 8. Try an educated guess! In Europe M$ does violate laws, but M$
simply pays the punishment by pocket money/stamp coffer ... dunno how
the idiom is called in English, but I suspect you understand.
However, isn't is suspect that the name "Microsoft" always comes along
with UEFI?!
I don't have tendencies to believe in conspiracy theories! I simply
don't trust this situation any longer. Again, at first I didn't care,
now I'm completely against it.
I am following this thread, and honestly, who needs to dual boot today?
I do not see anmore the need of it, as LVM is matured enough to avoid
anyway the pain of rebooting to run winoz, no?
We all know Apfle and Winoz are not playing the game and try to close
everything, no?
Just my 2 cents in this vibrant debate.
