1 |
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> Nilesh Govindarajan wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> On Mon 26 Sep 2011 08:51:17 PM IST, James Broadhead wrote: |
5 |
>>> |
6 |
>>> On 26 September 2011 16:01, Mick<michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
7 |
>>>> |
8 |
>>>> I don't know if you have seen this. Given that we're moving into UEFI |
9 |
>>>> boot what are the workarounds to compensate for Microsoft's efforts to |
10 |
>>>> exclude other operating systems from available hardware? |
11 |
>>> |
12 |
>>> My opinion is that signed boot is probably on its way (despite not |
13 |
>>> actually offering much in the way of security, as the Apple Battery |
14 |
>>> hack has shown), and so we'll enter an era where you have the option |
15 |
>>> between a fully-signed system (Windows 9 / OS XI or so) or a cracked |
16 |
>>> boot, with little in the way of switching between the two, at least |
17 |
>>> initially |
18 |
>>> |
19 |
>>> I know which one I'd pick if it came down to it :) |
20 |
>> |
21 |
>> And you really need not worry about it, some geek (Torvalds?) will |
22 |
>> surely find out a way. |
23 |
>> |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Well, since I don't have or use M$'s junk, I guess I am OK then? I just |
26 |
> need to make sure any mobo I buy in the future either doesn't have this or |
27 |
> can be disabled? |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Heck, if you didn't have to reboot windoze all the time, they wouldn't need |
30 |
> this. lol |
31 |
|
32 |
Most hardware will have UEFI. The trick will be making sure the |
33 |
harware you buy allows the "secure boot" part of it to be turned off. |
34 |
Microsoft's program requires vendors to support using secure boot, but |
35 |
doesn't _require_ them to support _not_ using secure boot. |
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
:wq |