On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Chris Cappuccio <ch...@nmedia.net> wrote: > Gerald Hanuer [ghanuer497...@gmail.com] wrote: >> Hello misc@, >> >> Native UEFI goes in tree. >> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=144115942223734&w=2 >> <http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=144115942223734&w=2>. >> Great work all. >> >> So what might the future hold for UEFI Secure Boot. >> > > So, the tree won't develop support for this standard until UEFI systems > require > it. Alternately, if someone writes it ahead of time, maybe that will be > useful. > (Useful in making it easier to boot OpenBSD without disabling secure boot in > your BIOS, or useful in allowing a vendor to lock their proprietary hardware > to their own signed openBSD loader, etc...) > > Since the purpose of Secure Boot provide little to no benefit to users (in > fact > quite the opposite), the question becomes.... why?
Well, maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, but doesn't this get me a bit closer to being able to dual-boot with MSWindows? (Not that I particularly want to, but the US tax office seems to expect everyone who is required to report certain things to be able to run a current version of the Adobe PDF viewer. Or, if there is a community supported pdf viewer that allows "filling out electronic pdf forms". I'm not yet aware of it.) -- Joel Rees Be careful when you look at conspiracy. Arm yourself with knowledge of yourself, as well: http://reiisi.blogspot.jp/2011/10/conspiracy-theories.html
