Hi all, I basically said UEFI is junk and Secure Boot is an anti-small-distro monopolistic practice. These were, and continue to be, my opinions, but they're just one man's opinion. I can see use cases where Secure Boot would be great, and I can see cases where something like UEFI would be handy: But they're neither necessary nor wanted on MY computers.
If I had a real choice to stick with MBR and always be able to disable Secure Boot, the world would be fine. We'd all make our choice, and we'd all be happy. But you don't know if you can turn off Secure Boot until you've bought the mobo or computer. This ability, which is the #1 priority for me, doesn't even make it to the specifications. There's no way to find out. THAT's why I hate Secure Boot. Similar for UEFI. I don't like its architecture, for exactly the same reason I don't like KDE and I don't like systemd: Monolithic entanglement. Hey, my preference is to have modules communicate on a need to know basis. Others may differ: All I wish is that we all had our choice. So I've written this email just to make sure my position is never interpreted as "nobody needs hardware protection against malware" or "nobody needs a system to prevent various boot code from clobbering each other." All I'm saying is it should be an option, and the existence of the option. SteveT Steve Litt October 2017 featured book: Rapid Learning for the 21st Century http://www.troubleshooters.com/rl21 _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
