*countable infinities only

Chris Murphy lists at colorremedies.com
Fri Jun 1 18:29:03 UTC 2012

On Jun 1, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 11:44:17 -0600
> Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 2012, at 9:54 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>> In case enabled secureboot is the only option (i.e we somehow refuse
>>> to boot with it disabled) then (and only then) you can talk about
>>> removed freedom otherwise this is just FUD.
>> It's an assumption there will be an option to disable it. This is up
>> to the firmware implementation, not the spec. Arguably that is a flaw
>> in the ratified spec. But the place for it now is, ironically, in the
>> Windows 8 Logo Program.
> Not true to my understanding.

It is up to the firmware implementation not the UEFI spec. The parts you quote mandating the ability to disable Secure Boot is a Windows certification requirement. 

IMO the mandate for user ability to disable should have been in the UEFI spec. Although a company that doesn't adhere to inconvenient portions of specs would just ignore that requirement, so a mandate in UEFI is probably pointless. (Yes, I enjoy contradicting myself.)

Chris Murphy

More information about the devel mailing list