| |||||||||||||
No signed kernel, just a signed boot loaderNo signed kernel, just a signed boot loaderPosted Jun 26, 2012 18:10 UTC (Tue) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953)In reply to: No signed kernel, just a signed boot loader by raven667 Parent article: Details on Ubuntu's UEFI secure boot plan
The only reason MS changed (yes changed) the spec to allow disabling secure boot was because of public outcry. As others have pointed out this was one of the bullet points in the halloween memo (leveraging hardware alliances to lock out linux). It would be foolish to dismiss this potential motivation as MS sees Android as a significant threat.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||