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