Adam Williamson wrote:
KK's position is that this is not true. He is arguing that
it's better
to require people to disable Secure Boot and use this as an opportunity
to explain the problems with it, than to come up with a compromise that
allows us to install in Secure Boot-enabled mode but:
a) compromises software freedom to some extent
b) compromises some functionality, possibly without the user being aware
of the fact
c) implicitly gives the whole secure boot setup our endorsement
Right, thanks for trying to explain where I'm coming from.
Kevin Kofler