On 2013/03/01 09:26, Tom H wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 7:08 PM, jdow <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On 2013/02/28 11:56, Tom H wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Robert Blair <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> On 02/28/2013 01:35 PM, Tom H wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't be surprised if SB became "un-disable-able" in the next
>>>>> few years. We'd then have to use an MS-signed shim to boot, as is
>>>>> now the case with the default Fedora and Ubuntu SB setups.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I've missed something here. If a generic "MS signed shim" is
>>>> available what value does this add? Wouldn't such a shim make booting
>>>> anything alternative possible?
>>>
>>> I'm sorry. It's not as generic as I made it look. AIUI, the shim is a
>>> basic stage 1 (or maybe stage 0.5) bootloader whose signature's
>>> validated against an MS key in the computer's ROM. Grub and the kernel
>>> (and its modules in Fedora's case but not in Ubuntu's) are then
>>> validated against a Fedora key in the shim.
>>
>> Which is the end of compiling your own code.
>
> You mean "compiling your own kernel without spending a one-time fee of USD 99."

A difference which makes no practical difference is no difference at all.

I rather resent Microsoft declaring they own my machines. I wish 'ix had
a practical working desktop environment rather than the dysfunctional
trash we see in Gnome, KDE, and company compounded by programs that do not
play well with each other.

I love 'ix, Linux in particular, for server level machines. I get annoyed
trying to use the pathetic excuse for a GUI environment. Fortunately I do
not expect to live long enough for this to become a really severe problem.
(Old age is not for the faint of heart, trust me.)

{^_^}