* On 2012 05 Jun 23:04 -0500, Christofer C. Bell wrote: > Please articulate what freedoms, exactly, you're losing through the > availability of UEFI secure boot (a feature you are in no way > compelled to use).
Let's not blindly assume that all hardware manufacturers will follow the spec and *allow* disabling of secure boot. It's obvious from the discussion that they will have the option of not enabling a non secure boot. The point I and others are making is that MSFT has a long record of engaging the hardware manufacturers in contracts whose terms are apparently rather interesting. There is no guarantee that being able to disable secure boot will be available in future products. I'm sure it will be available at first just to quell the fear, but the manufacturers will discover some "sound reasoning" a few years hence as to why eliminating the BIOS option is necessary. It's quite possible that everyone in this endeavor is working with the best interests of the users in mind. It would be a first, but given the long track record of this industry, I'm not holding my breath. > Secure boot is about future devices, not current ones. Your comments > thus far indicate you've made no effort to educate yourself about the > issues. That's twice you've swerved into ad hominem. If I were uneducated about the issues at hand, I would be rather accepting of what is being placed on my plate. As I am championing the right of myself and others to boot the code of our choice on the hardware of our choice, pragmatism is not a reasonable response. > On ARM devices that support secure boot, it cannot be disabled like it > can on a PC. Ahhh, now a qualifier. So it's not a requirement of the ARM processor then, and my comment about community derived ARM hardware being our future stands true? I'm only concerned about being able to continue to enjoy general purpose computing and programming on my terms. I can see this leading to a "secure" certificate being required to sign everything from boot to logging onto the Internet where only "approved secure" software may be used, to a place where compilers and interpreters--anything that can be used to write executable/interpreted code--must be likewise signed and part of a verified chain of "trust". All to prevent "malware", you see. Hobbyists and Free Software as we've known it will have no place in this brave new world. This strikes me as much like DRM the content studios have been pushing for several years. - Nate >> -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120606121411.gl4...@n0nb.us
