On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 18:22:48,
Chris Cappuccio [ch...@nmedia.net] wrote:
> So, the tree won't develop support for this standard until UEFI
> systems require it. Alternately, if someone writes it ahead of
> time, maybe that will be useful. (Useful in making it easier to
> boot OpenBSD without disabling secure boot in your BIOS, or useful
> in allowing a vendor to lock their proprietary hardware to their
> own signed openBSD loader, etc...)
> Since the purpose of Secure Boot provide little to no benefit to
> users (in fact quite the opposite), the question becomes.... why?
Makes sense, thanks for the insight Chris.
"Secure Boot" appears to be a double edged sword at best.
Regards,
Gerald Hanuer
