| |||||||||||||
LWN's 2013 PredictionsLWN's 2013 PredictionsPosted Jan 4, 2013 16:04 UTC (Fri) by felixfix (subscriber, #242)In reply to: LWN's 2013 Predictions by pjones Parent article: LWN's 2013 Predictions
Brings new meaning to the old hippie salutation "Greetings and hallucinations".
(Log in to post comments)
LWN's 2013 Predictions Posted Jan 4, 2013 18:30 UTC (Fri) by pjones (guest, #31722) [Link]
On second thought, since bugs are one of the typical first introductions many of us have with each other, perhaps the original comment here was spot on.
That said, I'm still unaware of any x86_64 PC implementing Secure Boot in a way that doesn't work with our implementation, so I'd still like some citations on that.
LWN's 2013 Predictions Posted Jan 6, 2013 9:56 UTC (Sun) by yaap (subscriber, #71398) [Link]
The comment may refer to an UEFI implementation that also check the booted OS name and will only allow Windows or RHEL to boot. It should be simple to work-around that by just adjusting the name. I can't remember where I read about this and can't find (quickly;) a reference though.
LWN's 2013 Predictions Posted Jan 6, 2013 16:39 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
That's got nothing to do with the bootloader used (and isn't related to Secure Boot), so it doesn't seem like it.
LWN's 2013 Predictions Posted Jan 7, 2013 13:52 UTC (Mon) by pjones (guest, #31722) [Link]
I'm well aware of that issue, and have been in contact with the vendor in question - but as mjg59 said, that's nothing at all to do with secure boot. It's just an unrelated bad idea some firmware vendor had.
|
|||||||||||||