[arch-general] Campaign against Secure Boot

[Lars Madson]

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 at 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 at babioch.de>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Am 26.06.2012 04:29, schrieb Manolo Martínez:
>> > 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
>>
>>
>