Karol ... don't ever accept the unacceptable because it's shaped as the best proposition ever. Make your own. Microsoft should not ask people to pay anything for a technology they impose, the new economy is about giving what you produce, I guess we'll receive a lot and lower down the quantity of shit productions. How have we done without secure boot until now ? So you fix the hole at the begining of the process, but when does the process really begin ? Did you install some malware yourself ? Ho, god, maybe we should pay microsoft so they disable the ignorants neurones in our brains. Karol please think a bit deeper and longer. Future is beautiful Laurent 2012/6/26 Karol Babioch <karol@xxxxxxxxxx> > Hi, > > Am 26.06.2012 04:29, schrieb Manolo Martínez: > > Just for clarification: you seem to be endorsing a model in which > > organizations (linux distros?) pay Microsoft for the right to install > > non-Microsoft software in PCs. Is that correct? > Yeah, I see that this creeps the shit out of some of you. However can > anybody come up with a better model? Again, I can't. And I definitely > want to take advantage of Secure boot, so only signed code is run at > some point in the future. > > Maybe for the sake of objectiveness we would be better of when some > neutral organization would take care of that, but for the time being I > can live with the fact that Microsoft is doing it. I don't expect them > to be too unfair here. And I don't think that they will make that much > money out of it. Furthermore they probably will have to invest some > serious amount of money in order to build a robust infrastructure for this. > > Just compare the situation with SSL/TLS. Here you also have to invest > some money (which can cost up to a couple of thousand USD when dealing > with EV certificates) in order to provide your users/customers with > "basic" security. Archlinux sets a good example here. > > Remember: You can always (by specification) turn off Secure boot, so > even "small" distributions won't be ruled out. As these "small" > distributions are probably used mainly by advanced users anyway, I don't > see much trouble here. > > Personally I can totally live with the solution, which is proposed right > now. I'm also willing to donate some money to Arch, when they will have > struggle to come up with 100 USD for their certificate, if they choose > to get one in the future. > > Best regards, > Karol Babioch > >
