On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:15 PM, jdow <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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.

Of course there's a difference. It's grub and the kernel and its
modules that you can't compile without signing.