[DC LoCo] Mark Shuttleworth responds to: Any comment on the Ubuntu UEFI ruckus?

[jerry w]

that's one thing for a personal use computer,
and I agree, I buy something I damn
well better be able to run whatever
I want on it...

what about work computers?

Boss/ Job wants only certain applications
and OS run on work time, and work
resources,

and then there is the gov/ military
sector, where the information is Owned
and access control needed
ala wikileaks...



On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Keith Howell <keith.c.howell at gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> I wonder if anyone has considered using the legal system against this?
>
> It looks like the spec has been written to restrict the signing to a
> single commercial entity, Microsoft, that has a monetary incentive.
>
> This sounds like restrictive trade practices or a monopoly. Given the
> courts previous rulings against such restrictive practices, perhaps that
> is the route to take.
>
> Personally, I am not against a technology such as secure boot, but *I*
> should be able to control the behavior. Even as far as loading my own
> self-signed certificate into the device so that my own compiled code is
> trusted.
>
> --
> Keith
>
> On 06/20/2012 08:12 AM, Kevin Cole wrote:
>> Any comment on the Ubuntu UEFI ruckus?
>>
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2012-June/035387.html
>>
>> Mark Shuttleworth mark at canonical.com <http://canonical.com> Wed Jun
>> 20 00:29:27 UTC 2012
>>
>> Previous message: Minutes from the Ubuntu Kernel Team meeting,
>> 2012-06-19 Next message: Any comment on the Ubuntu UEFI ruckus? Messages
>> sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>>
>> On 20/06/12 05:44, Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols wrote: > Matthew Garrett
>> started it: > > http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/13713.html > > and it's been
>> "reported" on elsewhere but I wonder what you had to say > about it.
>>
>> We've been working to provide an alternative to the Microsoft key, so
>> that the entire free software ecosystem is not dependent on Microsoft's
>> goodwill for access to modern PC hardware. We originally flagged the
>> UEFI / SecureBoot transition as a major problem for free software, we
>> lead the efforts to shape the specification in a more industry-friendly
>> way, and we're pressing OEM partners for options that will be more
>> broadly acceptable than Red Hat's approach.
>>
>> SecureBoot retains flaws in its design that will ultimately mandate that
>> Microsoft's key is on every PC (because of core UEFI driver signing).
>> That, and the inability of SecureBoot to support multiple signatures on
>> critical elements means that options are limited but we continue to seek
>> a better result.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> Previous message: Minutes from the Ubuntu Kernel Team meeting,
>> 2012-06-19 Next message: Any comment on the Ubuntu UEFI ruckus? Messages
>> sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>>
>> More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ubuntu-us-dc mailing list
> Ubuntu-us-dc at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-us-dc



-- 
Jerry W