4 ms·
I think the real solution is the ability for users to edit keys or disable it entirely. An independent non-profit organization still doesn't solve the problem o
by TallGuyShort 14y ago
I think the real solution is the ability for users to edit keys or disable it entirely. An independent non-profit organization still doesn't solve the problem of installing my operating system on my hardware. What if I disagree with policies of the non-profit. Until then, my solution will be to not buy such hardware at all.
- zokier 14y agoSecure Boot on non-ARM Windows machines will be disableable. UEFI standard has provisions for users to install their own keys too, but I haven't heard if anyone plans to implement that feature. Major problem with UEFI signing scheme is that your computer will most likely be unusable without MS keys as the firmware drivers iirc are most likely signed with MS keys.
- TallGuyShort 14y agoARM Windows machines are required to not be disableable. Non-ARM Windows machines MAY be disablable - but that's up to the manufacturer. What I'm saying is that the real solution is to require the ability for users to easily edit the configuration. It's a bit like saying the real solution isn't to defeat SOPA, but to actually pass it's opposite into law.
- zokier 14y agoWindows Hardware Requirements require Secure Boot to be disableable on non-ARM platforms.