From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 5 18:27:41 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 708D01065680 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 18:27:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olivares14031@gmail.com) Received: from mail-gh0-f182.google.com (mail-gh0-f182.google.com [209.85.160.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B5F68FC1B for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 18:27:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ghbz22 with SMTP id z22so5428234ghb.13 for ; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 11:27:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=VRBNnuDnxwxYIVXtyjhIBpP0V4BIHesyA22/qo9bJX8=; b=OzKJCZFSbwkcyiieISEjhb2hbXLDH1g8p3agVqkKWGoBGbM+buQwWz1fYUGb5/bYKP ewLGhkSaF4ybvbvRQfEU7MVA5+/W2Nhm47Bgq2ccmEriEuBNXghxa1aozte1NcmtX4KV Pb8IqWTg2dpCsMFzKfSzUd0iLv51BCrVPPOOeXmtuLgf0en4U0U07LsWqZFoVb2rXAdS nn4dVnlExlQ3FUwd+pUitQLDhq00kl2Txbq2FzEq1TJ2CmrmEkPCBsIsSavGwSDETtFM +b71mWT42144aO4ZI/mtBP0qRNW3vigS09J5TkX/u9TNOQkPwSBRjqXfZPdUDxr8ETUz SOag== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.213.71 with SMTP id nq7mr3899231igc.12.1338920860329; Tue, 05 Jun 2012 11:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.112.4 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:27:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 13:27:40 -0500 Message-ID: From: Antonio Olivares To: Kurt Buff Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 18:27:41 -0000 On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Kurt Buff wrote: > UEFI considerations drive Fedora to pay MSFT to sign their kernel binaries > http://cwonline.computerworld.com/t/8035515/1292406/565573/0/ > > This would seem to make compiling from source difficult. > Red Hat is the one that is apparently paying for it. I believe that should be unnecessary. It would only be a matter of time before someone breaks the M$ layer of poop that is supposed to prevent folks from booting other OSes other than Window$. They hit the panic button too soon IMHO. There is a thread on Fedora list about this and many people are unsure that Red Hat paying for secure boot was the right thing to do. See the archives for references. Regards, Antonio