Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 13:27:40 -0500 From: Antonio Olivares <olivares14031@gmail.com> 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: <CAJ5UdcNriMf6hFYTmzBM7h-DTL6_kvht=JC7zQuhg_uG-YhVvg@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 1:19 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. > Red Hat is the one that is apparently paying for it. I believe that should be unnecessary. It would only be a matter of time before someone breaks the M$ layer of poop that is supposed to prevent folks from booting other OSes other than Window$. They hit the panic button too soon IMHO. There is a thread on Fedora list about this and many people are unsure that Red Hat paying for secure boot was the right thing to do. See the archives for references. Regards, Antonio
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ5UdcNriMf6hFYTmzBM7h-DTL6_kvht=JC7zQuhg_uG-YhVvg>