On 2013/03/01 09:26, Tom H wrote:
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."
A difference which makes no practical difference is no difference at all.
I rather resent Microsoft declaring they own my machines. I wish 'ix had
a practical working desktop environment rather than the dysfunctional
trash we see in Gnome, KDE, and company compounded by programs that do not
play well with each other.
I love 'ix, Linux in particular, for server level machines. I get annoyed
trying to use the pathetic excuse for a GUI environment. Fortunately I do
not expect to live long enough for this to become a really severe problem.
(Old age is not for the faint of heart, trust me.)
{^_^}
