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