1 |
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:54:12 +0200 |
2 |
Florian Philipp <lists@×××××××××××.net> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Am 15.06.2012 06:50, schrieb Duncan: |
5 |
> > Greg KH posted on Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:28:10 -0700 as excerpted: |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> >> So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty. |
8 |
> >> |
9 |
> >> Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry |
10 |
> >> about Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues? |
11 |
> >> |
12 |
> >> Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsoft |
13 |
> >> to sign our bootloader?" is one aspect from the non-technical side |
14 |
> >> that I've been wondering about. |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> > I've been following developments and wondering a bit about this |
17 |
> > myself. |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> > I had concluded that at least for x86/amd64, where MS is mandating |
20 |
> > a user controlled disable-signed-checking option, gentoo shouldn't |
21 |
> > have a problem. Other than updating the handbook to accommodate |
22 |
> > UEFI, presumably along with the grub2 stabilization, I believe |
23 |
> > we're fine as if a user can't figure out how to disable that option |
24 |
> > on their (x86/amd64) platform, they're hardly likely to be a good |
25 |
> > match for gentoo in any case. |
26 |
> > |
27 |
> |
28 |
> As a user, I'd still like to have the chance of using Secure Boot with |
29 |
> Gentoo since it _really_ increases security. Even if it means I can no |
30 |
> longer build my own kernel. |
31 |
|
32 |
It doesn't. It's just a very long wooden fence; you just didn't find |
33 |
the hole yet. |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
Best regards, |
37 |
Michał Górny |