On 03/02/2013 08:09 PM, jdow wrote:
> On 2013/03/02 15:18, Tom H wrote:
>> 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.
>
> You missed the point, Tom. To a retired person a $100 bill is a serious
> amount of eating that has to be traded off with it. If that cannot be
> afforded without sacrifice then it might as well not exist as an option.
> That is the difference that makes no practical difference.
>
> The Microsoft extension to the issue is essentially the locked cellphone
> situation under which I could not code up any new assistive technology
> for myself and use it. It becomes me paying to have Microsoft own my
> device. And I'd have to pay them to use my own work on a machine I have
> every right to regard as my own machine.
>
> If Linux is going to systematically support that kind of a model in any
> way, I'm outahere.
>
> {^_^}

Linux or any open systems approach is not the issue.  Microsoft is a 
monopoly and has been able to impose this upon the hardware vendors or 
it will not allow the vendors to offer MS Win 8.  Unfortunately, the 
market will not be able to affect any change within any reasonable time 
interval unless Microsoft removes this restrictive covenant -- which is 
not likely as Microsoft has imposed this approach for maintaining the 
monopoly.  The only choice, libertarianism aside, is for governments to 
intervene, just as MS Win had to be offered to consumers with a 
different footprint in the EU compared to the USA (both had found 
Microsoft to be a monopoly, but the USA put no effective remedy into 
place).  Note that the imposed change has little if any effect upon 
security -- but might prevent unlicensed ("pirated") copies of MS Win 8 
from booting.  I presume that the PRC internally will break this 
imposition -- but I doubt that such PRC machines will either be common 
or desireable (except within the PRC where solution will be imposed).