[Linux-aus] UEFI secure boot

Bianca Gibson ringwraithenator at gmail.com
Thu Oct 6 00:20:16 EST 2011

About getting them to take responsibility for the boot locking: they could
also argue (insert list of reasons they gave in their blog) and that most
consumers use windows anyway, and installing a different OS on a computer is
not normally done.

Just to make it clear I don't hold that view I was suggesting they could
say, I was just pointing it out for the purpose of the discussion.
Understanding arguments against us enables us to better understand the issue
and counter those arguments :).

Also, a lot of things can happen between now and it getting released. Things
can get dropped from the system.

On 5 October 2011 23:58, Bianca Gibson <ringwraithenator at gmail.com> wrote:

> Please don't talk about *when*, there is already enough misinformation
> floating around about this. ZDnet taking the automatically generated
> response as a sign there are definitely grounds to go after MS really didn't
> help, especially since a lot of people then think a more exaggerated version
> of what they read. Today I had someone tell me we were already going after
> MS in court.
> To try and prevent the misinformation getting worse, I'd really appreciate
> you saying 'if'. I know you didn't mean anything bad by it, but take into
> account that media will be reading this and not necessarily read it
> thoroughly before reporting, so we need to watch out. I had unclear wording
> just before as well.
> On 5 October 2011 23:26, Luke Martinez <me at luke.asia> wrote:
>> Ah, well that's the evil in it all. We can't really make them assume
>> responsibility for the boot locking. Because they don't require them to
>> provide the ability to turn it off. As in, in court they could just say, "
>> we didn't force them, speak to the oems ."
>> Hopefully that argument wont stand up when we fight them in court.*
>> Luke Martinez,
>> Me at luke.asia
>> *unfortunantly its looking less of an if, more of a When.
>> -- android 2.3.4 custom build - sorry for the spelling.
>> On Oct 5, 2011 10:55 PM, "Bianca Gibson" <ringwraithenator at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Sorry, I didn't write clearly.
>> > I meant that it doesn't require OEMs to allow the UEFI to be disabled or
>> for
>> > users to add their own keys, as said in the article you (Luke) linked.
>> >
>> > Thanks, Bianca.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20111006/efaa9629/attachment.htm 

More information about the linux-aus mailing list