From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 16 00:08:52 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60354106566C for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 00:08:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gull@gull.us) Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com (mail-wi0-f178.google.com [209.85.212.178]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E183F8FC0A for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 00:08:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibhn6 with SMTP id hn6so13385wib.13 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:08:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=Mfo2Mtmhyyjqcz7ao69r6P3Cgy4/Mxzndh/xLOdGz18=; b=DxGNYjc0FE0xM0WgpoZ8Is6Ua7o8fMKvjQhIATrSTXZ/igMiHdUCQZgVywC0zRKfko ixAoAZUqyFTuf28OxdQItI089zXowXIV+CoUkBwkYxgOTl7Wj/UuzS+ngmodGz7QmYO/ PlQHAXEaeSqWJuwUl6MVIM8nDOgJvM1vdVVYlz5V3fgQubsmL+Xj1pkbucIypPgI3JT7 DBEn2m6hYZ2JGPkztUa5AEXRFy5RrOv10g26SqZeGiAAkW3RRBUnScj/70MU70Mh5+r1 Hszn8lske/YIJRfdiHlSIATBVLdKGWVMuN+UqsTMkg8J2ypj3RLq8JbtlsXgw9edipe1 LQ0g== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.142.200 with SMTP id i50mr4550353wej.47.1339805330761; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:08:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.73.8 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:08:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [128.95.17.228] In-Reply-To: References: <201206081611.q58GBW0J097808@fire.js.berklix.net> Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 00:08:50 +0000 Message-ID: From: David Brodbeck To: FreeBSD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkDguI2NTHBdFWICAFEM7IEL9dLsI2aUNgEGdxZOLyoM8WQ9GSehCd1vMeJzJrxni5DSY+y Subject: Re: UEFI Secure Boot Specs - And some sanity X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 00:08:52 -0000 On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:23 AM, C. P. Ghost wrote: > Only if they fully follow the spec. This is rather unlikely. > > Even today, there are still many broken DMI/SMBIOS > tables out there that contain barely enough stuff for > Windows to boot successfully. What makes you think > UEFI BIOS makers will go all the trouble to implement > such a complex spec, if all they have to do is to ensure > compliance with MS requirements? > > I wouldn't count on an option or switch to override this > system. Any server manufacturer who chooses to only support MS products is going to find they don't get much business from the academic market. So I suspect this may crop up on some desktop machines and laptops, but most servers will probably allow installing whatever OS you like. And the market will probably reject even desktop machines with this problem quickly, just like it quickly forced manufacturers to add a way to turn off Intel's CPU ID feature when it became a privacy concern.