From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1SfYl1-0008Rg-TN for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:48:24 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DA22921C03B; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:47:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pilot.trilug.org (pilot.trilug.org [64.244.27.136]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10CDAE076B for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:47:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pilot.trilug.org (Postfix, from userid 8) id 71E3514A0B2; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:47:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on pilot.trilug.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from wolves.homeip.net (unknown [71.20.203.55]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pilot.trilug.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0BF9414A0B0 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:46:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4FDB58F1.9060508@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:46:57 -0400 From: "G.Wolfe Woodbury" Organization: Redwolfe Computer Homestead User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120605 Thunderbird/13.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] UEFI secure boot and Gentoo References: <20120615042810.GA9480@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: b2e5ad1f-6c2b-4ab7-bac2-a909647a93a6 X-Archives-Hash: 5b08bf18f83a448c747bbd895e7a45df On 06/15/2012 06:14 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > 8. I think the bigger issue is with ARM, and I'm not personally clear > on what the exact policy is there. That really strikes me as > antitrust, but MS might argue that on ARM they have no monopoly > (instead we have a bunch of different vendors who almost universally > lock down their hardware). This requirement by M$ is applied to hardware that wants the "Certified for Windows 8" logo. If the OEMs don't care about windows 8 certification, they can provide for UEIF secure boot disabling. Since it is a "voluntary" acceptance in return for granting a consumer-fooling certification, they get away with an anti-competetive practice. They want to keep android off hardware used for Windows 8. Always follow the money. -- G.Wolfe Woodbury