Fedora ARM and SecureBoot

Chris Murphy lists at colorremedies.com
Fri Jun 8 19:24:34 UTC 2012

On Jun 8, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> No.  It's entirely anti-competitive:
> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/blog/2012/jan/12/microsoft-confirms-UEFI-fears-locks-down-ARM/
> http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/

You're confusing restriction of user choice and freedom with anti-competition. The argument that this is anti-competitive when Microsoft ARM hardware is a tiny part of the market is uncompelling. This is mentioned in the first article. Further, it is possible, while presently difficult perhaps, to run a different OS on such hardware that requires Secure Boot. But I haven't read a compelling argument how this difficulty can't be dealt with, let alone how it makes the policy anti-competitive.

To boot a non-Windows 8 operating system requires the same steps as Microsoft needs to get the hardware to boot Windows 8. What's the additional burden being applied to non-Windows 8 systems?

Chris Murphy

More information about the devel mailing list