On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:54:12 +0200 Florian Philipp <li...@binarywings.net> wrote:
> Am 15.06.2012 06:50, schrieb Duncan: > > Greg KH posted on Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:28:10 -0700 as excerpted: > > > >> So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty. > >> > >> Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry > >> about Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues? > >> > >> Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsoft > >> to sign our bootloader?" is one aspect from the non-technical side > >> that I've been wondering about. > > > > I've been following developments and wondering a bit about this > > myself. > > > > I had concluded that at least for x86/amd64, where MS is mandating > > a user controlled disable-signed-checking option, gentoo shouldn't > > have a problem. Other than updating the handbook to accommodate > > UEFI, presumably along with the grub2 stabilization, I believe > > we're fine as if a user can't figure out how to disable that option > > on their (x86/amd64) platform, they're hardly likely to be a good > > match for gentoo in any case. > > > > As a user, I'd still like to have the chance of using Secure Boot with > Gentoo since it _really_ increases security. Even if it means I can no > longer build my own kernel. It doesn't. It's just a very long wooden fence; you just didn't find the hole yet. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
