And remember one day when the "Disable Secure Boot" button is not present. Well we have right to not allow that too. 2012/6/26 Lars Madson <rwx700@gmail.com>
Karol ... don't ever accept the unacceptable because it's shaped as the best proposition ever. Make your own. Microsoft should not ask people to pay anything for a technology they impose, the new economy is about giving what you produce, I guess we'll receive a lot and lower down the quantity of shit productions. How have we done without secure boot until now ? So you fix the hole at the begining of the process, but when does the process really begin ? Did you install some malware yourself ? Ho, god, maybe we should pay microsoft so they disable the ignorants neurones in our brains. Karol please think a bit deeper and longer.
Future is beautiful Laurent
2012/6/26 Karol Babioch <karol@babioch.de>
Hi,
Am 26.06.2012 04:29, schrieb Manolo MartÃnez:
Just for clarification: you seem to be endorsing a model in which organizations (linux distros?) pay Microsoft for the right to install non-Microsoft software in PCs. Is that correct? Yeah, I see that this creeps the shit out of some of you. However can anybody come up with a better model? Again, I can't. And I definitely want to take advantage of Secure boot, so only signed code is run at some point in the future.
Maybe for the sake of objectiveness we would be better of when some neutral organization would take care of that, but for the time being I can live with the fact that Microsoft is doing it. I don't expect them to be too unfair here. And I don't think that they will make that much money out of it. Furthermore they probably will have to invest some serious amount of money in order to build a robust infrastructure for this.
Just compare the situation with SSL/TLS. Here you also have to invest some money (which can cost up to a couple of thousand USD when dealing with EV certificates) in order to provide your users/customers with "basic" security. Archlinux sets a good example here.
Remember: You can always (by specification) turn off Secure boot, so even "small" distributions won't be ruled out. As these "small" distributions are probably used mainly by advanced users anyway, I don't see much trouble here.
Personally I can totally live with the solution, which is proposed right now. I'm also willing to donate some money to Arch, when they will have struggle to come up with 100 USD for their certificate, if they choose to get one in the future.
Best regards, Karol Babioch