Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: UEFI secure boot and Gentoo
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 04:52:04
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] UEFI secure boot and Gentoo by Greg KH
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


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: UEFI secure boot and Gentoo Matthew Finkel <matthew.finkel@×××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: UEFI secure boot and Gentoo Florian Philipp <lists@×××××××××××.net>