On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 06:00:41PM +0200, geoffrey mendelson wrote: > > On Oct 25, 2011, at 5:55 PM, Baruch Siach wrote: > >> Hi Amit, >> >> The MS response on this issue is at >> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/09/22/protecting-the-pre-os-environment-with-uefi.aspx >> >> . >> >> Matthew then responded to this at http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/6503.html >> . > > For those that don't want to read through a lot of technical stuff he > said: > > "But for the foreseeable future, you'll be able to buy hardware that > runs Linux."
Some more context, for those of you who don't want to bother reading the whole article: This quote is from a footnote. The oroginal text: The obvious workaround is for them to just turn off secure boot. Ignoring the arguments over whether or not OEMs will provide that option[[[[[6]]]]], it benefits nobody for Linux installation to require disabling a legitimate security feature. It's also not likely to be in a standard location on all systems and may have different naming. It's a support nightmare. Let's focus on trying to find a solution that provides the security and doesn't have obvious scaling issues. And the footnote itself: [6] And to forestall panic, at this point we expect that most OEMs will provide this option on most hardware, if only because customers will still want to boot Windows 7. We do know that some hardware will ship without it. It's not implausible that some OEMs will remove it in order to reduce their support burden. But for the foreseeable future, you'll be able to buy hardware that runs Linux. So yeah. Matthew Garret says we have nothing to worry about in the forseeable future. I guess I should learn to read british understatements. -- Tzafrir Cohen | [email protected] | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's [email protected] | | best [email protected] | | friend _______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
