If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
No announcement yet.
Linux Group Files Complaint With EU Over SecureBoot
In a secure variable that can't be accessed from outside the firmware.
Whoever has a key that your machine has in KEK. For most machines, that means Microsoft.
And that's still a one source of trust model, which is flawed.
Why trust microsoft? Everyone who has ever trusted microsoft has gotten their fingers burned.
And so doesn't match the whitelist hash that the LF loader has installed for you, so still doesn't boot.
So... there's a whitelist for what the LF loader can load? So what if I make a Linux distro, do I have to go and apply to get my distro whitelisted for it before I can use the bootloader? Does every new version of the distro have to apply for a new whitelisting?
Oh, you're that guy. Figures.
There's no such thing as "The UEFI key", and you've misunderstood that conversation.
Oh you know what I mean. What have I misunderstood then?
You and Linus don't have to take responsibility for ensuring that distributions remain installable.
But wait! Secure boot can be switched off! And there's no way the bootloader can be used maliciously, as you've been saying all the time! Make up your mind now...
Also I agree 100% with Linus. Trying to bend over backwards just to satisfy some kind of microsoft scheme is stupid, we shouldn't let microsoft control Linux. Nothing good comes from giving microsoft control, they're the plague of computing. If we can only increase Linux market share by caving in to microsoft and letting them dictate how to develop Linux, then it's better to stay obscure. But I don't think Linux even needs to do that - microsoft is on it's way out and secure boot is a temporary, it will pass eventually, when people and OEM's see how flawed it is.
Microsoft should have every right to secure their systems as they see fit. This endless whining over SecureBoot is getting ridiculous.
If microsoft as company sells pcs, you could maybe agree to what you are saying. But in most cases, companies like as example dell sell pcs, and just because they preinstall windows on it, dont makes this systems Microsofts systems.l
Its like you would say, Tolkin or the company that made the lord of the rings movies should be able to tell cinemas in which color they paint their cinemas, because its teir cinemas because their movies had most sucess in the last years.
I dont get how this fanboyism works, it seems to completly shut-down the brain of the affected people... they would find it ok if the company murders because they love them and if it helps the company it should be allowed.
your argument, that companies that are partners are the same as would microsoft build the pcs themself, is just stupid, whats next? Intel and amd have windows 8 recommend prozessors, or they get that logo from microsoft and maybe only windows boots on this prozessors if they sign to that, and to get that they also get such feature so that only windows work with them, except you hack them 1000hours per prozessor?
So whats then the way, build your own prozessors, yes lets take 1000 redhat programmers and some other programmers, and build a prozessor thats even nearly as fast and cheap than a normal pc.
And then, if microsoft makes some programm with powercompanies, that sell you power, that their pc will only boot up, if they get the right frequency modulation over the network, what they only get from microsoft when they shut you down the power if you want to use another pc, yes something like that would be technicaly possible in theory.
So then whats next if you want to use linux on a pc, go ahead build for yourself a complete power plant?
total garbage argument, you could argue why apple can do such stuff and microsoft not, first apple dont does the same, at least they sell their pcs, to forbit 3rd party companies to sell pcs is also a bad thing, but its not the same, so even tehy are not allowed to dictate every other pc-sell-company whatever they want, only that they are not allowed to preinstall their pc-os.
But even if you think thats nearly the same, (what is not, if microsoft trys to do the same, we have many companies that sell than pcs with linux, and most likely they would win the fight and nearly nobody would use windows in 5 years from now).
But again even if you compare it, its not the market leader, there are anti-trust laws in the world in america in europe and everywhere.
and we have them for a good reason, because competition on a field where competition is possible, if its really competition and not only secret price agrements, leeds to at least cheaper products and maybe better products, at least in the product live cycle.
In reality at least it gives you cheap stuff and more diversity and if you invest much time into digging around, maybe even to quality, of course for the mass most of the time it doesnt lead to quality, but at least for the bad quality they dont have to pay much, like it happens with windows.