[aklug] Re: FSF taking up arms against Secure Boot

From: Shane R. Spencer <shane@bogomip.com>
Date: Wed Oct 19 2011 - 09:14:40 AKDT

I hope it's another one of these problems: http://xkcd.com/221/

That would at least make it easier to deal with later on.

Signed binaries are becoming the norm on mobile platforms (kernel/vm managed) and on
gaming platforms. Microsoft is just looking to the future as always and finding ways to
make our recycling system even more overloaded.

Above all else is our environment. I find this to be an eco disaster if hardware
providers don't provide a method to void warranty and turn off protection. How many
million units will be deployed that will only work for.. 3 years?.. under a single
operating system. It would be through <sarcasm>pure generosity</sarcasm> that Microsoft
will enable newer operating systems to cope with older hardware at this point in order to
run the most recent software.

Guess where millions of computers will end up if Microsoft DOESN'T release new software
after 3 years that keeps a good feature set with newer platforms? The Eagle River Dump.

- Shane

On 10/18/2011 10:56 PM, Christopher Howard wrote:
> On 10/18/2011 09:05 PM, Royce Williams wrote:
>> http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement
>> ---------
>> To unsubscribe, send email to<aklug-request@aklug.org>
>> with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
> Did some more reading. Correct me if I misunderstand how this works:
> Problem: Microsoft provides insecure operating system that loads
> malicious drivers
> "Solution": Force OEMs to ship PCs that only load drivers signed by
> Microsoft
> What the heck happened to layer isolation? When did it become the
> hardware's job to tell the operating system what drivers it is allowed
> to load?

To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
Received on Wed Oct 19 09:14:51 2011

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 19 2011 - 09:14:51 AKDT