On 4 June 2012 22:27, Sudaraka Wijesinghe <sudaraka.wijesinghe@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/04/12 23:48, Genes MailLists wrote:
Just to add another fedora link:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pjones/Features/SecureBoot
Sounds like they till plan to make use of the UEFI CA $99 signing service from Microsoft.
Do you think Arch should follow suit or require instead that Secure Boot is disabled?
gene/
If this is a poll, I vote "Arch should require Secure Boot to be disabled"
I choose a distro like Arch because it doesn't have a financial motive and will not give into market pressures such as this. If we want keep hardware vendors from forcing Secure Boot on us, we have to send the message out that we don't want it. Paying a "small" price of M$99 is not the way.
However as free software users, we will have to endure some hard time in the coming days when getting new hardware.
Just my two cents.
Sudaraka.
I'd like to add something to what Sudaraka said: Arch doesn't seems to have the same kind of user than fedora, Arch if I don't remember it wrong, tends to be aimed for a competent user. Such a competent user can disable secure boot in x86 devices. (ARM devices doesn't seem a problem to Arch because we don't do ARM) Just my two cents. Alexandre