On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 03:13:23 -0400, Tom H wrote: > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Camaleón <noela...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:03:54 +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:
(...) >>> UEFI has many benefits over the traditional BIOS, secure boot being >>> one of them. Why do you think there is no technical reason to support >>> secure boot? And what other mechanism would you suggest to use to get >>> a chain of trust from the BIOS(-replacement) to the desktop? >> >> UEFI is not the problem here. People is using UEFI nowadays without any >> issue. Is MS who is building a fictional wall in between. > > The concept of Secure Boot is sound; it's to secure the firmware boot of > a box and the handoff from the firmware to the OS; it has nothing to do > with TPM (although I understand that they can be combined) or grub2 > passwords. I put TPM as an example of another technology that was intended to "secure" our lives. I wonder how many linux users are currently taking advantadge of it. > It's the implementation of Secure Boot that sucks, from a Linux > perspective. It sucks because there's still not developed a normalized way of using it. And it sucks because closed source sofware developers are using it as a weapon to get their own purposes and goals and not considering another approaches... and such position can be valid from their point of view but not from ours :-/ > A dominant power, in our case Microsoft, will always impose its will on > others. That will be so until we stop it. And buying a single certificate is not what I understand for a proper solution: you're only solving "one" problem, there will be more to come. > It's the same in politics. When Great Britain was the world's > superpower, it used to impose its will on countries, companies, and > people. The US has imposed, is imposing, and will impose for the > forceable future its will on others. And China will, if it becomes the > world's superpower, do the same in the future. Others may not like it > but they don't have a choice. Secure Boot can be turned off so there's > some freedom available to those who want to reject it - for the time > being... The true freedom starts by telling users about the real situation and not by hidding the bad policies of a company just to gain your user base by saying "Hey, look, we're cool. We're a user-friendly linux distribution" :-/ > The board of directors of UEFI includes representatives from Apple, > Dell, HP, IBM, and Lenovo. So, even though Acer, Asus, and Samsung (to > cite a few) aren't represented, it's pretty safe to conclude that the > manufacturers are on-board. My guess is that manufacturers will take a "low-profile" approach: they will just provide a way for disabling "secure boot" from BIOS/UEFI and let the user decides what to do. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jqnsp0$u68$1...@dough.gmane.org