On 05/31/2012 12:46 PM, Peter Jones wrote: > On 05/31/2012 12:16 PM, Gerry Reno wrote: >> On 05/31/2012 12:13 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: >>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Gerry Reno<gr...@verizon.net> wrote: >>>> http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement >>>> >>>> SecureBoot is not about security. It is about restriction. >>> That is just untrue. SecureBoot can be used to make sure you only run >>> the software you intended to run, which is impossible without >>> SecureBoot (e.g. this cannot be done with a TPM). The idea is solid, >>> the technology is or can be made solid. >> No. The user is not in control here. Microsoft is in control. > > That's what we said in the working group. I'm not able to expand on that, > as working group conversations are under NDA, but suffice it to say that > argument didn't get us anywhere. >
The issue could be solved by having the SecureBoot default setting depend on the OS being booted: SecureBoot should only be Default:ON for Microsoft OS's and any other OS's that want to deal with that and should be Default:OFF for all others. . -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
