Conversation
Notices
-
Linux distros and foundations stand together on UEFI Secure Boot: http://bit.ly/vIb2Ih and http://bit.ly/ta9EF6
Sunday, 30-Oct-11 14:10:00 UTC from web- bjavotte likes this.
- Charles-H. Schulz and Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA repeated this.
-
@allisonrandal, your dent is misleading. !FSF opposes Restricted boot. Appears @linuxfoundation, #Canonical & #RedHat want it, but different
-
@bkuhn by that do you mean canonical, red hat, etc. are not with the fsf or that they are not that "extremist"?
-
I was under the impression that the !FSF would accept "Secure Boot" if users could add their own keys or disable it.
-
Yep, IMHO it could be a useful security feature as long as the computer owner/user has control over it.
-
Yeah, I'd never heard of a bootkit before this issue, but I guess viruses in MS Windows have gotten so bad maybe people need Secure Boot. ;)
-
Yeah, I'd be too scared to use a Windows machine these days :)
-
IMO people tend to forget that there are various stages of boot. !FSF's position is that users should be able to replace BIOS w/ #coreboot
Evan Prodromou and Moncler Jackets like this. -
#Canonical, #Red_Hat, & @linuxfoundation seek a compromise which would keep BIOS proprietary but allow users to sign from there down.
-
@bkuhn no disagreement. My point was, for #coreboot to be pratical, it needs to run on more hardware, so I can choose it after I buy smthng
bjavotte likes this. -
@bkuhn So, they agree with non-free bios which would let the user decide which OS to use/install? Hmm...
-
If I may hazard a guess, @fontana means that "BIOS" describes that of which UEFI is not an implementation, much like GNU is not Multics.
-
@bkuhn, sorry for the late reply, but I'll be discussing UEFI at the NJIT ACM SIG GNU/Linux meetings this week & want to know your thoughts.
-
Right, I was the one who contacted you re: 2011-11-30. But I'm leading 1-2 hrs of discussion on UEFI at SIG meetings starting this Friday.