List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
Greg KH posted on Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:28:10 -0700 as excerpted:
> So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty.
> Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry about
> Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues?
> Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsoft to
> sign our bootloader?" is one aspect from the non-technical side that
> I've been wondering about.
I've been following developments and wondering a bit about this myself.
I had concluded that at least for x86/amd64, where MS is mandating a user
controlled disable-signed-checking option, gentoo shouldn't have a
problem. Other than updating the handbook to accommodate UEFI,
presumably along with the grub2 stabilization, I believe we're fine as if
a user can't figure out how to disable that option on their (x86/amd64)
platform, they're hardly likely to be a good match for gentoo in any case.
ARM and etc could be more problematic since MS is mandating no-unlock
there, last I read. I have no clue how they can get away with that anti-
trust-wise, but anyway... But I honestly don't know enough about other
than x86/amd64 platforms to worry about it, personally.
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman