*countable infinities only

Bryn M. Reeves bmr at redhat.com
Thu May 31 16:57:58 UTC 2012

Hash: SHA1

On 05/31/2012 05:16 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 12:13 PM, Miloslav Trma? wrote:
>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Gerry Reno <greno at verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>> http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement
SecureBoot is not about security.  It is about restriction.
>> That is just untrue.  SecureBoot can be used to make sure you
>> only run the software you intended to run, which is impossible
>> without SecureBoot (e.g. this cannot be done with a TPM).  The
>> idea is solid, the technology is or can be made solid.
> No.  The user is not in control here.  Microsoft is in control.

Iff the user chooses to run a Microsoft operating system.

Since Microsoft are the owners of the copyright to Windows they are
free to apply restrictions to the use of that work on customer's
systems. Nobody ever guaranteed anyone the freedom to use and modify
another's copyrighted material without the owner's consent.

If their users do not like it they can opt out by switching to a
different OS.

It would be very different if the Win8 logo requirements required it
to be impossible to disable secure boot or to enrol 3rd party keys but
that is not now the case.

> Try user-modifying a previously approved installation and see if
> you, the user, can boot it.

If it's not Windows just re-sign, enroll your key and boot. Or turn it


Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/


More information about the devel mailing list