+1

I perform a lot of GNU+Linux installs each month, and 99% of them are
absolutely wiping SecureBoot & UEFI.


El 22/10/17 a les 19:06, Steve Litt ha escrit:
> Hi all,
>
> I basically said UEFI is junk and Secure Boot is an anti-small-distro
> monopolistic practice. These were, and continue to be, my opinions, but
> they're just one man's opinion. I can see use cases where Secure Boot
> would be great, and I can see cases where something like UEFI would be
> handy: But they're neither necessary nor wanted on MY computers.
>
> If I had a real choice to stick with MBR and always be able to disable
> Secure Boot, the world would be fine. We'd all make our choice, and
> we'd all be happy.
>
> But you don't know if you can turn off Secure Boot until you've bought
> the mobo or computer. This ability, which is the #1 priority for me,
> doesn't even make it to the specifications. There's no way to find out.
> THAT's why I hate Secure Boot.
>
> Similar for UEFI. I don't like its architecture, for exactly the same
> reason I don't like KDE and I don't like systemd: Monolithic
> entanglement. Hey, my preference is to have modules communicate on a
> need to know basis. Others may differ: All I wish is that we all had
> our choice.
>
> So I've written this email just to make sure my position is never
> interpreted as "nobody needs hardware protection against malware" or
> "nobody needs a system to prevent various boot code from clobbering
> each other." All I'm saying is it should be an option, and the
> existence of the option.
>
> SteveT
>
> Steve Litt
> October 2017 featured book: Rapid Learning for the 21st Century
> http://www.troubleshooters.com/rl21
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>