| 1 |
On 06/20/2012 04:08 PM, Greg KH wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 06:11:46PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I know that there is a great deal of discussion on the effect that |
| 4 |
>> UEFI Secure Boot will have on us. As far as I know, Secure Boot is |
| 5 |
>> implemented in the UEFI firmware and if we replace the firmware, |
| 6 |
>> Secure Boot issues disappear. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Stop right there. That's just not going to happen, sorry. You aren't |
| 9 |
> going to be able to get a user to replace their BIOS, nor should you |
| 10 |
> ever want to. You are not going to be able to keep up with the |
| 11 |
> hundreds, if not thousands, of different motherboards being introduced |
| 12 |
> every month, in order to just get rid of the secure boot option. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
OpenWRT does that with routers and Cyanogenmod does that with phones. It |
| 15 |
seems reason for us to offer it as an option to users. With that said, |
| 16 |
this probably won't happen. One of the Core Boot developers informed me |
| 17 |
of what is involved in setting up the address space and it is infeasible |
| 18 |
for us to do. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> And I want secure boot on my machines, with a key I trust, don't you? |
| 21 |
> If not, why not? I know lots of others that also want this, why deny |
| 22 |
> them the ability to run Gentoo on their hardware? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
To be clear, I was not talking about taking away options from users. I |
| 25 |
was talking about giving them options. |
Archives