| 1 |
Greg KH posted on Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:28:10 -0700 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about |
| 6 |
> Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsoft to |
| 9 |
> sign our bootloader?" is one aspect from the non-technical side that |
| 10 |
> I've been wondering about. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I've been following developments and wondering a bit about this myself. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I had concluded that at least for x86/amd64, where MS is mandating a user |
| 15 |
controlled disable-signed-checking option, gentoo shouldn't have a |
| 16 |
problem. Other than updating the handbook to accommodate UEFI, |
| 17 |
presumably along with the grub2 stabilization, I believe we're fine as if |
| 18 |
a user can't figure out how to disable that option on their (x86/amd64) |
| 19 |
platform, they're hardly likely to be a good match for gentoo in any case. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
ARM and etc could be more problematic since MS is mandating no-unlock |
| 22 |
there, last I read. I have no clue how they can get away with that anti- |
| 23 |
trust-wise, but anyway... But I honestly don't know enough about other |
| 24 |
than x86/amd64 platforms to worry about it, personally. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 28 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 29 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives