Direct or Gummiboot
You know, if they don't want to boot a signed kernel directly from UEFI which isn't that hard, they can just use this.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Debian Developers Discuss UEFI SecureBoot Plans
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by phoronix View PostIt's still not decided what approach Debian will ultimately support whether it's like Fedora using GRUB2 and singing the entire stack, Ubuntu using efilinux and only signing the low-level bits, or some entirely new approach for handling EFI/SecureBoot
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by TobiSGD View PostI can only say it again, on x86 hardware Microsoft is actively forcing the hardware manufacturers to not lock out other systems, if they want to get the Windows 8 logo for their hardware. Why is everyone bitching about Microsoft but no one actually reading their documentation?
Because there's no guarantee Microsoft won't change their agreement in the future.
Because there may be companies that will only accept SecureBoot "protected" OSes on their company computers, so a solution is required if Linux wants to be part of that space.
Originally posted by TobiSGD View PostSo do Apple and many Android vendors. Why is nobody complaining about them?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seraphim View PostDebian hasn't stated exactly what approach they will take with the whole secure boot/UEFI mess so it's a bit silly to criticize them at this point. The whole proprietary bootloader nonsense was enforced by those pigs at Microsoft since they never want to play fairly and are scared of the rising momentum that GNU/Linux has. Tampering with the open architecure of the PC to ensure only one OS can be used is blatant anti-competitve behavior by Microsoft and I hope they suffer a nasty retaliation for the shenanigans they constantly pull.
Leave a comment:
-
First of all i still doubt that you can boot with that signed loader. Even if you could that give you no extra security the way ubuntu wants to do it, you just save the 30s you need to enter you setup and disable it. Wow, so much trouble for such a small effect. Better provide uptodate bootloaders instead of heavyly patched old ones...
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Kano View Postbasically debian does not need to discuss things that could be disabled with a simple setup setting. they should better provide grub 2.00 in experimental soon.
Leave a comment:
-
basically debian does not need to discuss things that could be disabled with a simple setup setting. they should better provide grub 2.00 in experimental soon.
Leave a comment:
-
Interesting
I am curious to find out what Debian's approach will be.
It is very interesting due to the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG).
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by oliver View PostNOFI, but don't be so naive ... They already require it on ARM.
They don't do it know, because of all the antitrust shit that will rain over them.
The only way would be if Microsoft suddenly wouldn't be a monopoly anymore. But If Microsoft will not rule the market anymore, why should the manufacturers close their products to the other players on the market.
Microsoft won the browser wars in the beginning, but look at the browsers now, in the long run there was competition. I think that the same will be with the OSes, they won the OS wars in the beginning, but we will see diversion again.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by TobiSGD View PostHave I stated that? How should I guarantee that? Do you think I am Steve Ballmer? I have stated clearly that this is for the Windows 8 logo, shouldn't be hard to understand. People are spreading enough FUD about Secure Boot already, do you want to start now with spreading that about later Windows versions? You don't know what will happen then, I don't know what will happen then, so guessing around is of no use.
But you are right. We don't know for sure what will happen. For all we know Microsoft will play nice and .... right, sure it may be possible, but extremly unlikly. Embrace, Enhance and what was that last one again?
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: