Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 5 Jun 2012 20:37:17 +0200
From:      Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>
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:  <20120605203717.5663bdf7.freebsd@edvax.de>
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, 5 Jun 2012 11:19:26 -0700, Kurt Buff wrote:
> UEFI considerations drive Fedora to pay MSFT to sign their kernel binaries
> http://cwonline.computerworld.com/t/8035515/1292406/565573/0/

I may reply with another link:
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html



> This would seem to make compiling from source difficult.

It won't need much time until hackers find a way to find
a way around booting restrictions. Maybe this is an additional
step needed to make non-"Windows" boot on then-current
hardware. A free market won't allow a situation come up
that requires the competitor to obtain a "permission"
by its concurrent to make his product work. It would
also show a "security feature" being an aspect of
"defective by design" regarding computer hardware
and its manufacturers.

Compiling from source? You don't even get that far! :-)



-- 
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120605203717.5663bdf7.freebsd>