* Christopher Howard <christopher.howard@frigidcode.com> [130115 08:49]:
> On 01/15/2013 07:19 AM, Tim Johnson wrote:
> > I guess I don't understand the opposition. Perhaps you could tell
> > us and save me some google time sifting out the polemics.
> >
>
> I'm not sure about opposition, but there are huge issues to consider,
> both in terms of freedom and infrastructure. Here is a discussion on
> Gentoo dev mailing list from last June:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg50523.html
>
> The crux, from my limited understanding, is that we are basically
> putting ourselves at the mercy of Microsoft and possibly our distro
> developers as well. On the one hand, one can released a signed
> bootloader which loads anything (like our bootloaders do now). But
> eventual some malware distributor incorporates that into his attack
> system, and Microsoft or whoever decides to revoke the key. On the other
> hand, if a distro tries to put out a "fully trusted" OS, they basically
> have to created a full trust infrastructure, where even the 3rd party
> modules have to be approved from the top.
>
> And another part is that there is coreboot, which is an FSF supported
> alternative to proprietary BIOS as well as UEFI. Even Torvalds thinks
> UEFI is a bad idea, as it adds an unnecessary layer of complexity to the
> boot process, and it doesn't really solve the problems that it is
> supposed to solve.
*&^%! Time to trot out the linux-from-scratch PCs, except all that
I have seen are IMHO really overpriced..
-- Tim tim at tee jay forty nine dot com or akwebsoft dot com http://www.akwebsoft.com --------- To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org> with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.Received on Tue Jan 15 09:37:55 2013
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 15 2013 - 09:37:55 AKST