|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 03:33 AM EDT |
What FSF quite correctly point out is that Grub 2 under the GPL V3 does not
preclude having Grub 2 as a certified Secure Boot program.
GPL V3 does not legally require the release of the keys used by the computer
builder any more than the weaker and much less satisfactory alternative licensed
boot loader that Canonical intend to use.
Over the last couple of years I have noted an increasing proprietary slant to
Canonical's business policies. This looks like an excuse to move further down
that road. Even RedHat's solution seems to limit freedom to use other Linux
distributions.
I want to see what Debian plan to do. I see Debian being my way ahead in the
future.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Grub2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 06:14 AM EDT
- Grub2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 06:21 AM EDT
- Grub2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 06:26 AM EDT
- Grub2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 10:08 AM EDT
- Grub2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 10:24 AM EDT
- Grub2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 10:48 AM EDT
- Grub2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 11:02 AM EDT
- A Q from pj - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 12:02 PM EDT
- A Q from pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 01:01 PM EDT
- A Q from pj - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 02:39 PM EDT
- A Q from pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 03:00 PM EDT
- A Q from pj - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 07:09 PM EDT
- One small adgantage of Apple H/W - Authored by: complex_number on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 02:29 PM EDT
- Grub2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 10:46 AM EDT
- Grub2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 11:13 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 04:42 AM EDT |
If the hardware vendor wants to bypass "Secure Boot" then they can do
that without any help from Canonical. They can just turn off the misfeature.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 03:45 PM EDT |
From the sounds of it, and I don't know how true this
could be, you are saying if I click on the wrong thing
accidentally I can't just do a format and reinstall to
get a clean system because UEFI is infected? What fun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_waste
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 05 2012 @ 05:45 AM EDT |
Yeah I picked up on that too. Odd statement - if anything this is the least
controversial case as MS is nowhere near as dominant and if a sysadmin can't
turn off secure boot they probably need to find a new job.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
