4 ms·
> they don't mention what those reasons might be -- except for Linux support. I UEFI boot all my Linux systems. What FUD are you on about?
by josteink 9y ago
> they don't mention what those reasons might be -- except for Linux support.
I UEFI boot all my Linux systems.
What FUD are you on about?
- thinkloop 9y agoPls HN, don't downvote straightforward questions
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- e12e 9y agoActually, with all the industry support for Linux, I'd be more concerned with minix (ironically, as Intel me runs minix), free/net/openbsd, haiku, new experimental oses (like new stuff written in rust), new hypervisors (like xen, but new projects). Of course, as long as "Linux support" means "load signed extensible, Turing-complete bootloader that can do anything" - people running another OS can continue to that, with no help from the hw in securing their fde encryption keys...
- cjensen 9y agoIf you Read The Fine Article, it says that people disable UEFI for Linux. And, like you, they point out that secure boot can be disabled instead. I pointed out that they list zero additional reasons people give for disabling UEFI, so it is hard to evaluate how to fix the "last mile" for those cases. Calling that FUD when it is literally in the article is unkind at best. I shouldn't have to reiterate stuff already said in the article in order to avoid hurting the feelings of Linux users who haven't.
- josteink 9y ago> And, like you, they point out that secure boot can be disabled instead. Why would I do that? All Linux distros I use works fine with Secure Boot.