1 |
Am 16.06.2012 19:51, schrieb Michał Górny: |
2 |
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:54:12 +0200 |
3 |
> Florian Philipp <lists@×××××××××××.net> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> Am 15.06.2012 06:50, schrieb Duncan: |
6 |
>>> Greg KH posted on Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:28:10 -0700 as excerpted: |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>>>> So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty. |
9 |
>>>> |
10 |
>>>> Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry |
11 |
>>>> about Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues? |
12 |
>>>> |
13 |
>>>> Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsoft |
14 |
>>>> to sign our bootloader?" is one aspect from the non-technical side |
15 |
>>>> that I've been wondering about. |
16 |
>>> |
17 |
>>> I've been following developments and wondering a bit about this |
18 |
>>> myself. |
19 |
>>> |
20 |
>>> I had concluded that at least for x86/amd64, where MS is mandating |
21 |
>>> a user controlled disable-signed-checking option, gentoo shouldn't |
22 |
>>> have a problem. Other than updating the handbook to accommodate |
23 |
>>> UEFI, presumably along with the grub2 stabilization, I believe |
24 |
>>> we're fine as if a user can't figure out how to disable that option |
25 |
>>> on their (x86/amd64) platform, they're hardly likely to be a good |
26 |
>>> match for gentoo in any case. |
27 |
>>> |
28 |
>> |
29 |
>> As a user, I'd still like to have the chance of using Secure Boot with |
30 |
>> Gentoo since it _really_ increases security. Even if it means I can no |
31 |
>> longer build my own kernel. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> It doesn't. It's just a very long wooden fence; you just didn't find |
34 |
> the hole yet. |
35 |
> |
36 |
|
37 |
Oh come on! That's FUD and you know it. If not, did you even look at the |
38 |
specs and working principle? |
39 |
|
40 |
Regards, |
41 |
Florian Philipp |