Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 89

Thread: Ubuntu's Plans To Implement UEFI SecureBoot: No GRUB2

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,386

    Default Ubuntu's Plans To Implement UEFI SecureBoot: No GRUB2

    Phoronix: Ubuntu's Plans To Implement UEFI SecureBoot: No GRUB2

    Canonical has shared publicly their plans this morning on how they plan to implement support for UEFI SecureBoot on future versions of Ubuntu Linux...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTEyNDY

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,516

    Default

    This is getting stupider by the day

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    200

    Default

    FUCK you, Canonical!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    66

    Default

    fuck ms, fuck uefi

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    24

    Default

    So let me get this straight, they want to boot a MS signed bootloader which has very strict rules, then they chainload their own bootloader which is very liberal about what it loads. Wasn't this whole signing thing supposed to make security better?

    Seems to prove that the whole idea from the start is flawed.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pheldens View Post
    fuck ms, fuck uefi
    They too!

    But Canonical and Red Hat are now the Microsoft whores, paying the cost for staying alive even in a very bad environment.

    They are showing their real nature these days...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    49

    Default

    I dont get why this Secured Boot and requiring Microsoft key doesn't bring an Anti-trust suit againt MS. I mean, they're basically locking out people from using other OS unless these OS have paid MS for the signing. That's a hell of case!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    677

    Default

    It seems like a reasonable solution to go with. What else would you do?

    Not that Microsoft forcing this on everybody is a good thing...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    647

    Default

    I just wanted to say, fuck canonical for doing that, I just trying fedora... so thats the point where I beginn to switch here... but then I read something that the redhat guys go the same way... was I wrong about them complaining against it loudest, wasnt it them who are more free software guys than opensource or more serios opensource how you want to define that is subjective ^^

    So where is the alternative, I dont want go back to gentoo or something like that... I dont want to use different software not because its better just because it is not gplv3, I want no tivoisation, I want gpl3, I use gpl3+ for my stuff...

    It just sucks... I dont want to use a very old debian releases but I dont want a bleeding edge compile your stuff yourself distri... even arch linux what gets very much attention is not so complete... their AUR packages are often broken (see as example gnome-boxes)

    Where is the alternative... we need a new maybe debian-based more free but closer to upstream versions linux alternative, that have much users, maybe it could be linux-mint debian edition or somthing like that, but there must work more people for that, or something like sidux for gnome-shell not for kde ^^

    I hope something changes I dont want to use ubuntu anymore, because they made several desitions I do not agree to, and thats the point where it goes fo far for me, and then I read fedora does the same, unbelivable...

  10. #10

    Default

    when i get some UEFI hardware I will put my own key on it. Then I can run whatever I want. And I can be sure it will only run stuff I signed. Sounds pretty handy for me. (Though as I am unlikely to audit all the code that I'd sign then i am probably not much more secure than currently)

    Of course most folk don't want to mess around in their BIOS, so i am glad that the major distros work with the default keys.

    (If someone makes some hardware where i cannot change the key then I would not buy it.)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •