BTW, here is one of the many articles I've read about UEFI published by the Linux Foundation: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/sites/lfcorp/files/lf_uefi_secure_boot_open_platforms.pdf
It set me straight regarding exactly how Secure Boot was intended to function and dispelled my perspective it was Microsoft who tainted it's design to make it difficult to boot alternate Op Systems. I'll grant you that achieving a truly secure boot process is a more complicated process than previous approaches, but the blame for most difficulties lies more with BIOS vendors than Microsoft, their strong-arm tactics not withstanding. Another factor is lack of a certification process or testing procedures which I mentioned above. Certification can be a bad thing as well, as that could become a point of control that limits practical use only to those who can pay a fee. If the fee is too high it would be exclusionary and possibly prohibitive to smaller open source projects. I hope that the next release of Qubes will endeavor to fully utilize Secure Boot and thus improve it's integrity and ease installation. Of course given the variability of UEFI implementations it may prove to be too exclusionary to certain hardware manufacturers. I don't see Qubes as overly concerned about that however, as even without Secure Boot it has rather specific hardware requirements as it is. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to qubes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to qubes-users@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/357eb842-c401-4275-9eb4-daca1da3d935%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
