Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:51:46 +0200 From: "C. P. Ghost" <cpghost@cordula.ws> To: Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of? Message-ID: <CADGWnjW2LnrtOiXFzWFk9btMaeJhmOTxdZ7ScymY=qGME_cBgg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CADy1Ce7MihpmMowc265%2BS_RKorMO3KEKsCgr=pdnjg2jzq-dYQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CADy1Ce7MihpmMowc265%2BS_RKorMO3KEKsCgr=pdnjg2jzq-dYQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com> wrote: > UEFI considerations drive Fedora to pay MSFT to sign their kernel binaries > http://cwonline.computerworld.com/t/8035515/1292406/565573/0/ > > This would seem to make compiling from source difficult. > > Kurt I'm not sure I understand the issue, but this is my take on it so far: 1. What's preventing the makers of boot loaders like GRUB (which can also boot FreeBSD) from getting a certificate ONCE? And if they have one, what's preventing them from loading ANY kernel at all? It is only the first stage boot loader that needs to be signed, or not? 2. What's preventing anyone of us in the EU from stepping up efforts with the EU Commission and the EU Parliament to stop Microsoft from monopolizing the ARM (and later x86) platforms, i.e. by becoming the only gatekeepers? After all, EU sovereign states and their economies can't depend on a US corporation having a global kill switch to their whole infrastructure. We're not just talking about Windows dominance here, but a lot more: dominance on the whole hardware segment. I'm pretty sure this scheme is highly anti-competitive, and I guess it runs afoul of a lot of already existing EU regulations. -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADGWnjW2LnrtOiXFzWFk9btMaeJhmOTxdZ7ScymY=qGME_cBgg>