And remember one day when the "Disable Secure Boot" button is not present. Well we have right to not allow that too. 2012/6/26 Lars Madson <rwx700@xxxxxxxxx> > 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 >> >> >
