Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich

Posted May 21, 2012 6:58 UTC (Mon) by djao (subscriber, #4263) [Link]

Right, now go read my post above where I point out, with quotes, the part in the Windows Hardware Certification Requirements where it states that users on Intel PC systems must be able to disable secure boot in order for the system to be compliant with the certification requirements.

Secure boot and driver signing on ARM is a genuine obstacle for Linux, because users can't turn it off. Secure boot and driver signing on Intel PCs is not a problem right now, because users can turn it off. It may become a problem in the future and I will be the first to complain if it does. But at the moment I believe it is a legitimate tradeoff to restrict what unsophisticated computer users can do on PCs in the name of security. I'm sick and tired of dealing with Windows botnets and I can't possibly be the only one.

No one is talking about the benefits side of the cost-benefit equation. Secure boot isn't just purely an antagonistic move on Microsoft's part to screw over Linux users. It has some legitimate benefits to offset its costs, benefits which will be appreciated even by Linux users. The key issue is whether advanced users can turn it off. If they can, then I don't have a problem with it.