3 ms·

Yes, this is the issue I see in all this. None of the linux vendors banded together to create a NPO which would simply manage keys, ensure it was avialable to

Yes, this is the issue I see in all this. None of the linux vendors banded together to create a NPO which would simply manage keys, ensure it was avialable to all manafacturers. Maybe even provide a logo/stamp/certification/brand so people can instantly see it's supported. The fact that ONLY Microsoft have done this isn't really the fault of Microsoft. The fact that devs can't agree on the most elegant way of providing the chain of trust, in a manner which plays nicely is again, not Microsofts fault. Yet Microsoft is being flamed for this.... Why exactly is this their fault?

icebraining 14y ago
What about Haiku, or any other OS which doesn't have a big enough community to get their key in? Why should OS installation be a privilege of popularity, with others forced to jump through hoops? MS is at fault for pushing this whole system. Whether Linux distros could or not join the system is a red herring.
TheAnimus 14y ago
>MS is at fault for pushing this whole system. Whether Linux distros could or not join the system is a red herring. What?! Pushing UEFI, which isn't their design, which has been used by Apple and other for years, or pushing secure boot? Secure Boot is a damned good idea, and whilst IANAL it appears that for a windows sticker you MUST allow it to be switched off. So its Microsoft are in fact pressuring OEMs to ensure that people can run other OS's on their kit (except ARM). What this is about is how the other OS's can get the benefit of SecureBoot, well, if they can't get their act together as I mentioend above, why should they fuss that someone else gets SecureBoot. Lets be hoenst too, most people who need such simple "mum proof protection" are on Windows anyway.