|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 03:52 PM EDT |
If we end up choosing a motherboard that does not allow us to
switch off secure boot:
I suspect that will equate to picking a
name brand PC. Likely something Canonical wants to let distributors
use.
How far would Canonical get with telling their distributors that they
shouldn't be using one of those? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 02 2012 @ 04:51 PM EDT |
> If you want to blame anyone, place the blame squarely where it belongs:
> First: On the hardware manufacturer
> Second: On the entity that decided to use the hardware by said
manufacturer.
Case 1: the manufacturer advertises hardware as Linux Ready - boom
Case 2: non-Linux capable hardware installed by customer - boom
Canonical stands by with an innocent smile?
Consider case 3, where Canonical and the manufacturer collaborate
to use a MS key to sign the bootloader. Then MS does something that
obliges the manufacturer to change the hardware so Ubuntu breaks.
Whose fault now? Clue, it's not the FSF, they're still standing in the
corner wringing their hands.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
