On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:08 PM, jdow <j...@earthlink.net> wrote: > On 2013/02/28 11:56, Tom H wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Robert Blair <r...@anl.gov> wrote: >>> On 02/28/2013 01:35 PM, Tom H wrote: >>>> >>>> I wouldn't be surprised if SB became "un-disable-able" in the next >>>> few years. We'd then have to use an MS-signed shim to boot, as is >>>> now the case with the default Fedora and Ubuntu SB setups. >>> >>> Maybe I've missed something here. If a generic "MS signed shim" is >>> available what value does this add? Wouldn't such a shim make booting >>> anything alternative possible? >> >> I'm sorry. It's not as generic as I made it look. AIUI, the shim is a >> basic stage 1 (or maybe stage 0.5) bootloader whose signature's >> validated against an MS key in the computer's ROM. Grub and the kernel >> (and its modules in Fedora's case but not in Ubuntu's) are then >> validated against a Fedora key in the shim. > > Which is the end of compiling your own code.
You mean "compiling your own kernel without spending a one-time fee of USD 99."
