On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 01:09:50 +0100 Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> wrote: > But only the stock kernel, which turns it non-free software.
Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying. > There's no benefits for us, too As I said, our users can install Debian easily. It's huge benefit. > -- a thief or attacker can boot/install > Windows, read any non-encrypted data, etc. We're better off if we don't > support secureboot on such hardware. Debian has enough use share to be > named when governments are concerned -- if we start providing "secure"boot > enabled kernels, it'd be an easy sell to lock down consumer machines to > disallow kernels not blessed by Microsoft's key. What you're talking about? It does NOT depend on whether Debian ships secureboot enabled kernel or not. -- Hideki Yamane <henr...@iijmio-mail.jp>