Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 29th Dec 2012 16:37 UTC
Permalink for comment 546594
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-12
What about the list of distros that boot on Windows 8 PCs with secure boot disabled, because, you know, Microsoft acquiesced to pressure and makes the ability to disable secure boot a requirement for the Windows 8 logos...
Oh, this list is just as long as every other PC?
Then what is the problem? There are multiple valid ways to use secure boot with Linux, one of which is getting your kernel signed for $99 (Verasign will do this, if you go through Microsoft). Or, you can install your own keys and sign kernels yourself on many systems.
Or, do what Red Hat does, and have a signed loader load a kernel with it's own keys.
Or, disable Secure Boot, and it operates as it always has, because, you know, any computer with a Windows 8 logo will have this capability. Let me say this again, because apparently, a lot of people have problems understanding this:
The ability to disable secure boot is a requirement for the Windows 8 logo program. You may not ship a system with the Windows 8 logo unless the user can disable secure boot.
I really don't see the problem.
Edited 2012-12-29 19:01 UTC