On Jun 1, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 11:44:17 -0600 > Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> On Jun 1, 2012, at 9:54 AM, drago01 wrote: >>> In case enabled secureboot is the only option (i.e we somehow refuse >>> to boot with it disabled) then (and only then) you can talk about >>> removed freedom otherwise this is just FUD. >> >> It's an assumption there will be an option to disable it. This is up >> to the firmware implementation, not the spec. Arguably that is a flaw >> in the ratified spec. But the place for it now is, ironically, in the >> Windows 8 Logo Program. > > Not true to my understanding. It is up to the firmware implementation not the UEFI spec. The parts you quote mandating the ability to disable Secure Boot is a Windows certification requirement. IMO the mandate for user ability to disable should have been in the UEFI spec. Although a company that doesn't adhere to inconvenient portions of specs would just ignore that requirement, so a mandate in UEFI is probably pointless. (Yes, I enjoy contradicting myself.) Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
