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."