FSF Campaign against Microsoft's Plan to Enforce "Secure Boot"

[Amit Aronovitch]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:51 PM, geoffrey mendelson <
geoffreymendelson at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Oct 25, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Amit Aronovitch wrote:
>
>  Setting aside the amusing political debates and going back to the original
>> topic - what's the actual status of the UEFI boot issue?
>>
>
>
> 1. Microsoft never said they would do what the FSF claims they would.
>
> 2. Microsoft has said, but not in these words, we were not going to do
> this.
>
> If you want a somewhat relevant and entertaining experience watch the movie
> "Minority Report".
>
>
My concern in that message was regarding standartization of BIOS boot
protocols, and whether or not future standards would allow you to boot your
own self-compiled/self-signed kernels.

Whatever or not the FSF announcement said. Microsoft is *not* the authority
responsible for that, merely one out of 11 companies (including Apple and
IBM) which are represented in the relevant forum.

The relevance of FSF in the matter is only due to the fact that they brought
this specific issue to the attention of this specific list.
Microsoft's opinion (and I mean their opinion on BIOS boot options, not on
Stallman or his visit to Israel^H^HPalestine) is relevant because I suppose
that they are strongly represented, and unlikely to be ignored (Redhat is
not listed on UEFI site, so I suppose Mathew Garrett's suggestions will get
less attention than ideas brought forward by Microsoft).
Hence my interest in the statement mentioned here.

Took a while, but while writing this reply I finally got your point about
"Minority Report" (been a while, and all I remembered from the film was Tom
Cruise waving his hands to operate that then-futuristic-looking GUI) :-)

   AA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/pipermail/linux-il/attachments/20111025/6c6dc871/attachment-0001.html>