Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 00:08:50 +0000 From: David Brodbeck <gull@gull.us> To: FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: UEFI Secure Boot Specs - And some sanity Message-ID: <CAHhngE0Bzmnr1OvyJYpdv4MS1%2BxO72L9CwMzWtnPFhftvUifzw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAHhngE39x5766NGQE9mfWdstiYeyX_DbTPU9635nQyqeuAF54g@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAD2Ti2_SHrW5U3FM5FDuuddkBijKs_z%2BnsaViQBT6uF9X3b8Eg@mail.gmail.com> <201206081611.q58GBW0J097808@fire.js.berklix.net> <CAD2Ti29q6ij5Xht587_7gmDs%2BsWfStST=4C5abiF=Cg7FXi%2Byg@mail.gmail.com> <CADGWnjU3qkSKGWDUjGwroXXLd_=auWvmfWKy%2B8kqzj5r2oGmeg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHhngE39x5766NGQE9mfWdstiYeyX_DbTPU9635nQyqeuAF54g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:23 AM, C. P. Ghost <cpghost@cordula.ws> 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHhngE0Bzmnr1OvyJYpdv4MS1%2BxO72L9CwMzWtnPFhftvUifzw>