6 ms·
I don't understand from all these uefi-gate articles what exactly prevents "secure UEFI" from being just a boot option.
by xentronium 15y ago
I don't understand from all these uefi-gate articles what exactly prevents "secure UEFI" from being just a boot option.
- kenjackson 15y agoNothing. Some do this. It's up to the OEM. That's Microsoft's point. MS isn't requiring that OEMs can't do this. If OEMs want to, they're completely within their right to do so. It's up to them.
- burgerbrain 15y ago"Some do this." Well that is the problem isn't it?
- kenjackson 15y agoTake it up with the individual OEMs who don't build machines the way you like them. Or better yet, buy those that build the ones you do like. This seems downright silly to sue about.
- burgerbrain 15y agoI'm not suing over it.. I'm just upset over the entire situation. "buy those that build the ones you do like." There are two very large problems with this: 1) Now I have to do yet another piece of needless research whenever I buy a piece of hardware. That is a pain in the ass, pure and simple. 2) Everyone else I know won't be doing that research. So when my dad says to me again, "Hey, your mother is getting viruses again, stick her back on Ubuntu", I have yet another thing to worry about. Yeah yeah, I get it. They have a right to do it, the market will sort it out, blah blah blah. Fact is, I also have a right to bitch about it, regardless of their rights.
- kenjackson 15y agoThe Linux community should incentive it. RedHat should say to HP, Dell, and Acer -- "for each UEFI Win8 logo machine you ship, where you enable the ability to disable secure booting we give you five dollars". Or letting them keep a larger percentage of RH license revenue, or whatever.
- burgerbrain 15y agoThe only thing that would incentive in OEMs pulling more shit like this in the future.