| 1 |
Am 15.06.2012 06:50, schrieb Duncan: |
| 2 |
> Greg KH posted on Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:28:10 -0700 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about |
| 7 |
>> Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues? |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsoft to |
| 10 |
>> sign our bootloader?" is one aspect from the non-technical side that |
| 11 |
>> I've been wondering about. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I've been following developments and wondering a bit about this myself. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I had concluded that at least for x86/amd64, where MS is mandating a user |
| 16 |
> controlled disable-signed-checking option, gentoo shouldn't have a |
| 17 |
> problem. Other than updating the handbook to accommodate UEFI, |
| 18 |
> presumably along with the grub2 stabilization, I believe we're fine as if |
| 19 |
> a user can't figure out how to disable that option on their (x86/amd64) |
| 20 |
> platform, they're hardly likely to be a good match for gentoo in any case. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
As a user, I'd still like to have the chance of using Secure Boot with |
| 24 |
Gentoo since it _really_ increases security. Even if it means I can no |
| 25 |
longer build my own kernel. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> ARM and etc could be more problematic since MS is mandating no-unlock |
| 28 |
> there, last I read. I have no clue how they can get away with that anti- |
| 29 |
> trust-wise, but anyway... But I honestly don't know enough about other |
| 30 |
> than x86/amd64 platforms to worry about it, personally. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I guess anti-trust is not an issue since MS is not even close to having |
| 34 |
a monopoly in ARM. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Regards, |
| 37 |
Florian Philipp |
Archives