Results 1 to 10 of 89

Thread: Ubuntu's Plans To Implement UEFI SecureBoot: No GRUB2

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,678

    Default Ubuntu's Plans To Implement UEFI SecureBoot: No GRUB2

    Phoronix: Ubuntu's Plans To Implement UEFI SecureBoot: No GRUB2

    Canonical has shared publicly their plans this morning on how they plan to implement support for UEFI SecureBoot on future versions of Ubuntu Linux...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTEyNDY

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,766

    Default

    This is getting stupider by the day

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    214

    Default

    FUCK you, Canonical!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    77

    Default

    fuck ms, fuck uefi

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    24

    Default

    So let me get this straight, they want to boot a MS signed bootloader which has very strict rules, then they chainload their own bootloader which is very liberal about what it loads. Wasn't this whole signing thing supposed to make security better?

    Seems to prove that the whole idea from the start is flawed.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,329

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lithorus View Post
    Wasn't this whole signing thing supposed to make security better?
    If you're drinking the Microsoft Kool-Aid, then yes, SecureBoot is about security, but those of us with half a brain realize it's about 1% security-inspired and 99% about selling keys and making other OS's a pain to use.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pheldens View Post
    fuck ms, fuck uefi
    They too!

    But Canonical and Red Hat are now the Microsoft whores, paying the cost for staying alive even in a very bad environment.

    They are showing their real nature these days...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    56

    Default

    I dont get why this Secured Boot and requiring Microsoft key doesn't bring an Anti-trust suit againt MS. I mean, they're basically locking out people from using other OS unless these OS have paid MS for the signing. That's a hell of case!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timofonic View Post
    They too!

    But Canonical and Red Hat are now the Microsoft whores, paying the cost for staying alive even in a very bad environment.

    They are showing their real nature these days...
    As far as I know, the money goes to Verisign, not Microsoft.
    Still, why should those assholes Verisign get the money?
    Shouldn't it be handled by a non-profit?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •