On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Seth Johnson
<seth.p.johnson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:00:33AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org>
wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:54:56AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>>> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Jay Sulzberger
<jays(a)panix.com> wrote:
>>> >>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen <ghenriks(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Not to mention that you are effectively telling anyone not
currently
>>> >>>> using "Red Hat Hardware" that they can't run
Linux, thus eliminating
>>> >>>> the ability to gain new Linux users.
>>
>>> >>> You have committed a sign error in your argument.
>>
>>> >>> Because there are 200 different products being released,
>>> >>> certainly Red Hat can get another motherboard made. It would
>>> >>> just be the 201st such motherboard.
>>
>>> >>> Further, this is in answer to just another aspect of the same
>>> >>> sign error: We do not have to solve any such problem as you
pose.
>>> >>> One superior motherboard would be of great help to Fedora, Red
>>> >>> Hat, and the free sofwtare movement. It is hard today I think
to
>>> >>> get Fedora running on some PowerPC systems, on some MIPS
systems
>>> >>> too, and likely very hard on old VAX machines. So what?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> We do not have to have every motherboard work well with free
>>> >>> software. But we do need at least one, and we hope many.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> There certainly needs to be one to lead, but also more to follow so
>>> >> that that one does not become a target.
>>> >>
>>> >> But the best thing is that a free software UEFI would let anybody
put
>>> >> their own key as hardware root, and this would stymie the
>>> >> rationalizing of big shots holding root and granting signing
services
>>> >> to their hardware.
>>> >
>>> > All UEFI implementations we're aware of will be shipping with
support
>>> > for replacing all the secure boot keys, including Pk. UEFI itself is
>>> > also entirely free software, although specific implementations may not
>>> > be.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then write a better UEFI. No need for a shim.
>>
>> The machine will have a functional UEFI implementation. Why would we
>> want to replace it?
>
>
> Um, because you're not asking permission?
I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you're suggesting here. It's
not possible to simply replace a system's firmware with another
implementation. You could chainboot from one UEFI implementation into
another, but if the first implements secure boot then you'd have the
same set of bootstrapping problems as you would with just booting an OS.
See the fuller thread, reconstructed in nested fashion above. A free
software UEFI would be on its own hardware.
Seth
>>> >>
>>> >> Folks might have to pay extra for this at first, but it would soon
be
>> >> apparent that this is the way it's supposed to be.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Seth