[Linux-aus] What is LA's response to UEFI Secure Boot?

Brent Wallis brent.wallis at gmail.com
Sun Aug 5 09:33:21 EST 2012


On Sunday, August 5, 2012, Matthew Lye wrote:

> Wasn't this done a year ago?

The last reference I can find on the LA site is from council meeting
minutes dated 15/2/12:


   Secure Boot seems to have quietened down. Pursue?

A lot has happened tween times.
Just wondering if a public statement was made or any further work done on
the matter?

>  Leadership is responsibility, not privilege, Action, not position,
> Guidance, not knowledge, and outcome, not disposition.
> <No trees were harmed during this transmission. However, a great number of
> electrons were terribly inconvenienced>
> On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Brent Wallis <brent.wallis at gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'brent.wallis at gmail.com');>
> > wrote:
>> Hi to All,
>> What is our collective response to UEFI and secure boot?
>> Canonical and RH have taken a position.
>> The FSF seem to have taken an opposing view.
>>  Is it true?
>> Could we be facing a situation where we could be locked out of a Linux
>> install on current and future PC/ Laptop hardware?
>> What impact will this have on servers systems?
>> Rgds
>> BW
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-aus mailing list
>> linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
>> 'linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au');>
>> http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20120805/40fa7d9b/attachment.htm 

More information about the linux-aus mailing list