Proceed to the next paragraph then. ;-)
Seth
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 01:19:22PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:04 AM, nomnex <nomnex(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Things have changed. That's a good news (for once). Thanks for the
> > update.
>
>
> Bravo, so apparently there is a leader on this, a free software UEFI
> on its own trustworthy hardware, that hopefully will tell the truth to
> the user about security for the owner of the device, and make
> installing free operating systems non-scary.
To the best of my knowledge, their UEFI implementation isn't free
software.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org
> However, more need to follow in the same market (and in
providing
> infrastructure for boxes over which owners have root control) so
> System76 does not become a target. Then big shots won't be able to
> turn a practice of holding root on their devices and granting signing
> services to their hardware, into a bogus norm either of a kind that
> says you must have a "license to compute," or of a kind that says
> copyright means you can't parse and process published information,
> that turns it into a prior restraint.
>
> You might have to pay extra at first, but this will make it apparent
> to the world at large that this is the way things should be, rather
> than either of those bogus norms. Then we will have won the entire
> information freedom battle, for us and our grandchildren.
>
> No need for a shim. Use your own chain of trust. No implication that
> anybody must be *forced* to provide devices without Secure Boot turned
> on. The Secure Boot technology is a useful facility.
>
> You need to come to terms with what this new technology means for
> freedom. That does not mean boot on all hardware sold. It does mean
> make sure free software has and supports hardware with UEFIs that
> cater to freedom, and that gives you control over boxes you own.
>
>
> Seth