1 |
Arun Raghavan posted on Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:15:28 +0530 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> I guess we're in an especially bad position since everybody builds their |
4 |
> own bootloader. Is there /any/ viable solution that allows people to |
5 |
> continue doing this short of distributing a first-stage bootloader blob? |
6 |
|
7 |
As I said in my first reply, for x86/amd64 at least, MS is mandating a |
8 |
user-unlock option. That would leave the bootloader fully unsigned, but |
9 |
it would let users keep building their own. |
10 |
|
11 |
But for arm, last I read MS is mandating no-user-unlock. There, a signed |
12 |
blob first-stage bootloader is likely to be mandatory, tho in reality |
13 |
that platform has always lacked the user-end base standard support and |
14 |
flexibility of x86, so it's not like they're losing it. But if the |
15 |
entire market moves toward arm as some are predicting... |
16 |
|
17 |
-- |
18 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
19 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
20 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |