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>