On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Joe Zeff <joe(a)zeff.us> wrote:
On 07/07/2012 03:21 AM, suvayu ali wrote:
>
> I am more worried about "free" as in freedom. I don't quite grasp the
> implications as an end user. For example consider the following
> scenarios.
Didn't we hash this out less than a month ago? I know you've been on the
list long enough to have seen it and participated. Why bring it up again?
Well, I did follow that thread and the noise level was rather high to
extract the practical details. For example, I wasn't sure if the disable
secure boot option was mandated by MS or not. Given the option, I'll
disable it for sure but I wasn't sure if I would have the option to
disable. Hence all my questions were with regards to how I can run my
system given secure boot is enabled.
The following comment from Rahul answers my question.
On x86 systems, the ability to disable secure boot is mandated by
Microsoft and needed to debug Microsoft drivers ...
And for the record, I did not start the thread. I just asked a question
in the context of the thread. I hope that clears up any doubts.
PS: If you are wondering, what I took from the thread, it's going to be
a pain if at some point the optional requirement to secure boot is
removed.
--
Suvayu
Open source is the future. It sets us free.