| |||||||||||||
Tasting the Ice Cream SandwichTasting the Ice Cream SandwichPosted May 20, 2012 16:56 UTC (Sun) by jcm (subscriber, #18262)In reply to: Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich by Cyberax Parent article: Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich
You know why secure boot happened as it did? Because, as usual, the Linux community waited until someone else came up with a standard first, then complained and whined about "the big bad Microsoft". We should learn to join in with these folks in creating future standards that are more palatable to our own desires rather than criticizing the others for looking out for their business interests over our own.
(Log in to post comments)
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 20, 2012 18:20 UTC (Sun) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
As anybody who reads mjg59's journal, I know that technically secure boot is not a problem for Linux.
The problem is in the certificate management which is outside of the technical scope of the current secure boot standards.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 20, 2012 18:59 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
The problem is not the standard. The problem is the policy that a third party created around the standard and then imposed on the industry. Earlier involvement in the spec process would have made zero difference here.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 21, 2012 16:43 UTC (Mon) by job (guest, #670) [Link]
That does not make sense. It is somehow Linux developer's responsibility to lock ourselves out of hardware? Palladium and its ilk was a bad idea. Bad ideas should be criticized.
|
|||||||||||||