3 ms·
Why wouldnt you want secure boot as well? I signed linux and it's just fine, debian does it transparently now.
by xwolfi 5y ago
Why wouldnt you want secure boot as well?
I signed linux and it's just fine, debian does it transparently now.
- Bancakes 5y agoWhy would you want SB+TPM? It's called TPM 2 because only 2 pieces of software support it. Lol. I already know where microsoft is going with this - Xbox-like DRM. In a few years they'll probably release pci-e based "security devices" with full DMA privileges, too.
- Snetry 5y agoBecause doing kernel dev and constantly having to resign modules is more tedious than its worth
- qalmakka 5y agoBecause it's a hassle, and I really don't care about that. Given that I'd have to go through the hassle of signing my own kernels just to get Windows to boot once a week, I really don't get why I should do that in the first place. There's no way Windows _NEEDS_ to be signed to boot. Even macOS doesn't complain that much when booted without Secure Boot. Perhaps someone will find a way to cheat Windows about SecureBoot or TPM by using OpenCore, like the Hackintosh community has been doing for a long time.