To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
shmerl,
"Nothing was said about proper solutions though. Disabling secure boot is a dumb workaround, but not really the proper method. Proper method is giving the user a way to manage keys for the UEFI."
That's just it, disabling secure boot should be a *last resort*. The inclusion of security features which users can't enable for alternative operating systems is anti-competitive and makes them second class operating systems.
This is all the more frustrating because secure boot should have been engineered in a way the benefits the end user rather than restricting us.
Ed Bott doesn't attempt to make any reasoned arguments and doesn't even touch upon any of our real concerns (such as dual boot, the accessibility of keys, DRM, etc). He brushes off secure boot criticisms in one fell swoop when he jumps strait to the conclusion that this is a fud campaign in his first line. He hasn't answered any of our questions, and seems more pissed off that we are asking them than anything else.
Damn it Ed, I look forward to new information on this important issue and all you've done is to re-frame the debate at an abstract level without addressing anything at all.




Member since:
2010-06-08
Nothing was said about proper solutions though. Disabling secure boot is a dumb workaround, but not really the proper method. Proper method is giving the user a way to manage keys for the UEFI.
http://ozlabs.org/docs/uefi-secure-boot-impact-on-linux.pdf
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/making-uefi-secure-boot...
This guy's comments from http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/leading-pc-makers-confirm-no-windows... are just pathetic.
Edited 2011-11-03 21:09 UTC