On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 22:55 +1000, Matt Giuca wrote: > > Please don't blame the fedora people for this. They are doing what they > > need to, it's not their fault. They have to do this if they want to offer > > mostly free software within the reach of people without specialist > > knowledge. It's really unfortunate that this is the best solution. > > > > Yeah I know. > > I said on my Google Plus > post<https://plus.google.com/108688191891412975833/posts/Ty72kHyT9KV>: > "Did Fedora make the right choice? I honestly don't know, but it's > disgraceful that it has come to this." > > I just don't know what to think about this, but I can't help feeling that > getting into bed with Microsoft can't end well.
Unfortunately it seems even the most basic link in this system - the security of Microsoft code signing - cannot be trusted as evidenced with windows update, and so secure boot will probably not be secure at all: http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/w32flamer-microsoft-windows-update-man-middle Meanwhile although x86 PCs are expected to have the ability to disable secure boot MS have decreed that in order to be certified for Windows 8 then ARM based systems *must not* have the ability to disable secure boot, thus completely blocking out all competitive platforms and ensuring a monopoly. With the huge growth in ARM based devices in recent years this is a disaster in progress. IMO this is just another DRM scheme (albeit one restricting the hardware rather than software or media) and like all DRM schemes it will provide minimal security against the people that matter while massively inconveniencing the users and denying them fair usage rights over the product they have purchased. Cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
