Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 22nd Jun 2012 23:17 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu After Fedora, Ubuntu has now also announced how it's going to handle the nonsense called "Secure" Boot. The gist: they'll use the same key as Fedora, but they claim they can't use GRUB2. "In the event that a manufacturer makes a mistake and delivers a locked-down system with a GRUB 2 image signed by the Ubuntu key, we have not been able to find legal guidance that we wouldn't then be required by the terms of the GPLv3 to disclose our private key in order that users can install a modified boot loader. At that point our certificates would of course be revoked and everyone would end up worse off." So, they're going to use the more liberally licensed efilinux loader from Intel. Only the bootloader will be signed; the kernel will not.
Thread beginning with comment 523556
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by NuxRo
by Gone fishing on Sun 24th Jun 2012 05:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by NuxRo"
Gone fishing
Member since:
2006-02-22

I have, but exactly what do you think that will accomplish? Microsoft doesn't give a shit how many signatures are on a stupid petition. It does not matter. Even if they get a million signatures,


http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/stateme...

A million signatures will carry weight in the EU and an EU antitrust lawsuit MS will care about. In fact politicians in general care about organized groups of voters.

Of course if your considering direct action and whacking some MS top brass that might work - I'll enjoy reading about it in the papers.

Edited 2012-06-24 06:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by NuxRo
by Alfman on Sun 24th Jun 2012 05:56 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by NuxRo"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Gone fishing,

"Of course if your considering direct action and whacking some MS top brass that might work - I'll enjoy reading about it in the papers."

Where's that petition at?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by NuxRo
by Gone fishing on Sun 24th Jun 2012 06:10 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by NuxRo"
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

Over 35000 not a million but ...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by NuxRo
by darknexus on Sun 24th Jun 2012 12:02 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by NuxRo"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Of course if your considering direct action and whacking some MS top brass that might work - I'll enjoy reading about it in the papers.


Wow, talk about going way out into right field. Still, at least we now know your secret desire ;) . I specifically asked where the EFF and SFLC are in this. I don't agree with getting governments involved but, if you insist, forget the petition and get the old-hands in trying to fight shit like this in on it. Petitions mean nothing in the US and, guess what, that's where Microsoft is headquartered. Plus, if the EU hasn't gotten involved in this yet even with what we already know, why would they care later? What are they going to do, demand Microsoft make yet another separate edition of Windows? Yeah, that worked oh so well with the "N editions", didn't it? My point is simply that experienced lawyers should already be attacking this, if legal action is what's needed. Forget waiting for the petition, since by the time that gets anywhere it will be too late. Nip it in the bud right now, or else we'll all be stuck with it for a damn long time.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by NuxRo
by Delgarde on Mon 25th Jun 2012 04:56 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by NuxRo"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

A million signatures will carry weight in the EU and an EU antitrust lawsuit MS will care about.


No it won't, because it will be very clear to a court that Microsoft aren't even close to breaking anti-trust laws in this case.

Yes, they're forcing their vendors to support a technology that could have anti-competitive consequences. But they're also openly taking steps to mitigate those consequences - they're forcing vendors to allow secure boot to be disabled by the user (except on ARM), and they're also providing their key-signing service to those who don't have the influence to get their own keys distributed by vendors.

In short, it's certainly an anti-competitive move, and a rather devious one at that. But it's done in such a way that there's no way the laws can touch it.

Reply Parent Score: 2