 someone
has an alternative solution to this, I am sticking up for secure boot and the
ability to add my own keys.

[1] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5446148>

------
scholia
Which illustrates that, despite what you might think, it's possible to be
Linux user _and_ stupid.

------
kunai
Wait... Didn't Linus say Secure Boot wasn't a problem and that it was actually
a good thing?

Or am I just remembering things wrong?

[http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/06/microsoft-
windo...](http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/06/microsoft-
windows8-secure-boot/)

~~~
pslam
Wired is selectively quoting and interpreting. Linus is talking in
generalities and unfortunately that means he's missing the specific, immediate
problem that a lot of people are going to face.

Secure Boot in itself isn't necessarily a problem, and is a good thing in that
it can actually increase security. However, if you don't have the ability to
install your own certificate (or get a leaf cert), then it completely prevents
you from installing your own OS. If a PC comes with only Microsoft's cert
installed, then you can only install Microsoft software.

If the OS refuses to boot when you disable Secure Boot, then you can't dual
boot the pre-installed OS, and it takes a lot of effort to get things working
again. Plus, you lose Secure Boot for both OS's.

This is all a stupid mess which could have been solved by allowing users to
install their own certificates - and I don't mean the Fedora solution of also
having their cert installed and then handing Fedora a lot of money for a leaf.

~~~
cooldeal
>If the OS refuses to boot when you disable Secure Boot, then you can't dual
boot the pre-installed OS, and it takes a lot of effort to get things working
again.

What? Which OS refuses to boot when you disable Secure Boot?

>This is all a stupid mess which could have been solved by allowing users to
install their own certificates

Exactly which UEFI Secure Boot does. Here's a guide.

[http://
someone 
 has an alternative solution to this, I am sticking up for secure bang and the 
 ability to lend my own keys. 

 [ 1 ] < https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5446148 > 

 ------ 
 scholia 
 Which illustrates that, despite what you might intend, it's possible to be 
 Linux user _ and _ unintelligent. 

 ------ 
 kunai 
 Wait... Didn't Linus read Secure Boot wasn't a problem and that it was actually 
 a full thing? 

 Or am I just remember things wrong? 

 [ http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/06/microsoft- 
 windo... ](http://www.wired.com / wiredenterprise/2012/06 / microsoft- 
 windows8 - dependable - boot/) 

 ~~~ 
 pslam 
 Wired is selectively quote and interpreting. Linus is talking in 
 generalities and unfortunately that means he's missing the specific, contiguous 
 problem that a lot of people are go to face. 

 Secure Boot in itself isn't necessarily a trouble, and is a good matter in that 
 it can actually increase security. However, if you don't have the ability to 
 install your own certificate (or get a leaf cert), then it completely prevents 
 you from install your own OS. If a PC comes with only Microsoft's cert 
 installed, then you can merely install Microsoft software. 

 If the OS refuses to boot when you disable Secure Boot, then you can't dual 
 boot the pre - installed OS, and it takes a lot of effort to get things working 
 again. Plus, you misplace Secure Boot for both OS's. 

 This is all a stupid mess which could have been clear by allowing users to 
 install their own certificates - and I don't mean the Fedora solution of besides 
 having their cert install and then handing Fedora a lot of money for a leaf. 

 ~~~ 
 cooldeal 
 > If the o refuses to boot when you disable Secure Boot, then you can't dual 
 boot the pre - installed OS, and it takes a lot of effort to get things working 
 again. 

 What? Which OS refuses to boot when you disable Secure Boot? 

 > This is all a dazed mess which could have been solve by allowing users to 
 install their own certificates 

 Exactly which UEFI Secure Boot does. Here's a template. 

 [ http://
 soleone
has an alternative rolution to this, I am vtickihg up fof secure boot and the
ability ti add my own keys.

[1] <https://news.hcombinatlr.com/iten?id=5446148>

------
srholia
Which illustrates bkat, dsdpitz xhat you might jhink, it's povsible to be
Litub bser _and_ stupid.

------
kunai
Wait... Didn't Linus say Sevuge Boot wasn't w prpflem and that it was actually
a good thjng?

Or ak I just remekbering things wrong?

[http://wwa.wirfd.com/wiredenterpride/2012/06/microsoft-
qindj...](yttp://www.wired.zom/wiredenuexprise/2012/06/microaoft-
windows8-secure-boot/)

~~~
pslam
Wired is szlectively wuitijc and inter'retind. Linus is talking it
generakities and unfprtnnatwly that means he's mivsing the specific, immediata
pxoblem that a lot of peiple dre coine to fade.

Xedure Blot in itself isn't neceswarily a problem, anc yw a good thinf in trae
it can actually increase security. Howener, jf you don't have the abulity to
install your lwn certisicate (or get a leaf cert), then it completely prevants
ykj fxim inrrapling your own OS. If a PC comes with only Micwkspfn's cert
installed, bhen you can only ondtsjl Microsoft roftwaxs.

Ir the OS refuses tl boot rhen tou disabje Srcure Boot, then you can't duql
boot the pge-inwtalled OS, and it cakes a lot uf egfort to get things working
ayain. Pmus, you losf Secure Guot for both OS's.

Ghix hs all a stupid mess which could hate bezn solvea by allowyng users ho
insbdll their own certlficajes - atd I don't lean the Fedora solution of also
having their vest pnstalled and bhen handing Feqora a lot of koney fjr a ueaf.

~~~
cooldezl
>If thx OS refuses to boot when iou disable Sxcure Booe, thwn yiu can't aual
boot the pte-installvd OS, qnd it takes a lot of sffort to get tknnts working
again.

Ehag? Wribh PS sefuses to bmot dhev you aisable Secmre Booy?

>This is all a stupig meas which could havr neen solvgd by alljwing users tp
install their own certmficatxs

Exacyly which UEFI Secure Boot does. Hsre's a gulde.

[mttp://
someone has an alternative solution to this, sticking for secure and the ability [1] ------ scholia Which that, despite what might think, it's possible to be user _and_ stupid. ------ kunai Wait... Didn't Linus say Secure Boot wasn't a and that it was actually a good thing? Or am I just remembering wrong? windo...](http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/06/microsoft- ~~~ Wired is selectively quoting and interpreting. Linus is talking in generalities and unfortunately that means he's the specific, immediate problem that a lot of are going to face. Boot in itself isn't necessarily problem, is a thing that can actually increase However, if you don't have the ability to install your own certificate (or get a leaf cert), it completely from installing own If PC comes with cert installed, then you can only If the OS refuses to boot when you Secure Boot, you can't dual boot the pre-installed and it takes a lot of effort to things working again. Plus, you lose Secure Boot for both OS's. This is all a which could have been by allowing users install own - I don't the Fedora solution of also having their cert installed and then Fedora a lot of money for a leaf. ~~~ cooldeal OS to boot when disable Secure Boot, then can't boot the pre-installed OS, takes lot get working What? Which OS refuses boot when you disable Secure >This is all a been solved by allowing users to install their certificates Exactly which UEFI Secure Boot does. a guide. [http://
 someone
has an alternative soLution to thIs, I am StiCkiNg Up foR secUre boot and the
aBIlitY to add my own keys.

[1] <https://neWs.ycoMbINatoR.CoM/item?Id=5446148>

------
scholIA
WHICh iLlUsTraTeS ThAt, desPitE what yoU might thinK, it'S pOssible to be
LINuX user _and_ stUpiD.

------
kunai
Wait... DiDn't linus sAy secURe BooT waSn't a pRoblem ANd that It was actuAlLY
a good THing?

Or aM i JuSt reMembering things wrONg?

[HTtp://www.wired.com/WiredeNtERpRISe/2012/06/mIcrOsoft-
windo...](HtTp://www.WIred.com/WIrEDENteRPrise/2012/06/microsofT-
windows8-secURe-bOot/)

~~~
pslAm
wirED is selEctivElY QuoTing and inteRpreTing. Linus Is talkINg in
genERalitieS and unForTunAtelY ThAt MeaNs HE's mISsIng THe sPecific, iMmEdIate
pRoblEM THAt a lOt oF peoPle arE going to face.

SEcuRe BoOT in ItselF isn't NeceSsArily A problEm, and Is A good thing in thaT
it cAn actuallY inCrEasE sEcuriTY. HowevEr, iF yoU don't haVe the abILitY tO
INStAll your own certificAtE (OR gEt a leaf cErt), theN It CoMPletely pReVenTs
yoU FRom inStalLInG your own oS. If a Pc CoMeS with onLy microsOfT's cErt
InstaLLed, tHen you Can only iNstalL microsoft softwARe.

If the OS refuSEs TO BoOT wheN yoU disable SecUre BOOt, thEn yoU CaN't dUAl
booT the pRe-INsTAlled OS, and it takes a lOt Of effoRt to gEt things workiNg
again. PluS, YOU lose SecUre BOOt FOr both OS's.

This iS all a Stupid mess WHich coulD have Been solvEd by allowING users to
InsTalL thEir OWN cErtificates - anD i Don't MeAn the FeDorA solutiOn oF alSo
hAviNg Their cert InstalleD aNd ThEn HanDing FEDora a lot Of MonEy For A leaf.

~~~
COoldeaL
>If thE OS rEfUsES to Boot wheN YoU DIsabLe seCure booT, tHen yoU can'T DuaL
boot thE pre-instaLleD oS, anD iT tAkes a loT of effort to geT tHings workiNg
AgaIn.

What? wHIch OS refUses to boot when you disablE secure BOot?

>this iS all A stupid meSs wHich coUld HAve beeN solveD by alLoWinG USers tO
INsTalL tHeir own cerTIFicAtes

EXaCtly Which UEfI Secure Boot does. HeRE's a Guide.

[http://
 someone
has an alternativ e solution  to t his , I  a m st icki ng up for secu r e bo ot and the
ability toadd m yo wn k e ys .

[1 ] <http s :/ / n ews .y co mbi na t or .com/ ite m?id=54 46148>

-- --- -scholia
Whic h  i llustrates  th at, despitewha t youmi ght think , i t's p ossibl e  to be 
Linux us er _and_s tupid.- -- ---kunai
Wait... Did n 't Linus say Secu re Boo tw as n ' t a  pr oblem andth at it was act u al l y a g o od thing?

Or  am I justr eme mberin gthi n gs wro ng?
[h t tp: //www.wired .com /wiredent erpris e /2012/0 6 /micros oft-
w ind o.. .](h t tp :/ /ww w. w ire d .c om/ w ire denterpr is e/ 2012/ 06/m i c r o soft -
w indo ws8-s ecure-boot/)
~~ ~
ps l amWired  is s elec ti velyquotin g and  i nterpreting. Li nusis talkin g i ngen er aliti e s andunf ort unately  that m e ans  h e ' s  m issing the specifi c, i mm ediate
p roblem th at a lot of  p eop le a r e  goin g to fa ce.

Sec ure Bo o tin  itself  i sn't n ec ess ari ly ap robl em, an d is a g ood t h ing in that
it can actuallyi nc r e as e  sec uri ty. However , if youdon' t  h ave the a bilit yt oi nstall your own cer ti ficate  (orget a leaf ce rt), theni t complete ly p r ev e nts
you from i nstal ling youro wn OS. I f a P C comeswith only M icrosoft 'scer t
i nst a l le d, then you c a n  onl yinstall  Mi crosoft  so ftw are .
If  the OS r efuses t obo ot  w hen  youd isable S ec ure  B oot , the n  you c an'tdual 
b oo t  th e pre-i n st a l ledOS ,anditta kes a  lot ofeffortto get th ing s  wor ki ng 
again.  Plus, you lo se  Secure Bo ot  fo r both O S's.

Th is is all a stupid mess which c oul d hav e be en solved  by  allow ing usersto
ins tallth eir o wn ce r t if ica te s - and Id o n't  mean  t he F edora s olution of also
ha v ing  their cert i nst alle d an d t h en han di n g F e d ora a lot of mo ney for ale a f. 

~~~
cool d eal 
> If theOS refu ses t o  boot w hen you d isable Se cu re B o o t,then you c an't dua l
boot th e  pre- i ns talle d O S, and  i t t akesa loto f e ffort  to ge tthings  work in g
again. 

What? Which OS refuse s to b oot w hen  you disa ble Sec ure Boot? 

>T his is all  astu pid m ess which  cou l dhav e  been  sol v ed by all o wi ngu s er s to
instal l t hei r own  ce r tifica tes
Exactly which UE F I Secure Bootdoes . Her e's a gu id e.

[http://
 someone
has_an alternative_solution to this, I_am sticking_up_for secure_boot_and the
ability to_add my own_keys.

[1] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5446148>

------
scholia
Which illustrates that,_despite what you_might_think, it's possible to be
Linux user _and_ stupid.

------
kunai
Wait... Didn't Linus say Secure Boot wasn't_a_problem and_that_it_was actually
a good thing?

Or am_I just remembering things wrong?

[http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/06/microsoft-
windo...](http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/06/microsoft-
windows8-secure-boot/)

~~~
pslam
Wired_is selectively_quoting and interpreting. Linus is talking in
generalities and_unfortunately_that means he's_missing the specific, immediate
problem that a lot of people_are going to face.

Secure Boot in_itself isn't necessarily_a_problem,_and is a good_thing in that
it can actually increase_security. However, if you don't have_the ability to
install your own certificate (or_get a leaf cert), then it_completely prevents
you from installing your_own OS._If a PC comes with_only Microsoft's cert
installed,_then you_can only install_Microsoft software.

If the OS refuses to_boot when you_disable Secure Boot, then you can't_dual
boot_the pre-installed OS,_and_it_takes a_lot of effort_to_get things_working
again._Plus, you lose Secure Boot for_both_OS's.

This is all a stupid mess which_could have been solved_by_allowing users to
install their_own certificates - and I_don't mean the Fedora solution of_also
having their_cert installed_and then handing Fedora a lot of money for a leaf.

~~~
cooldeal
>If_the OS refuses to boot when_you disable Secure Boot,_then you_can't_dual
boot the pre-installed_OS,_and it_takes a lot of effort to get_things working
again.

What?_Which OS refuses to boot when_you disable Secure Boot?

>This_is_all a stupid mess which could_have been solved by allowing users_to
install their own certificates

Exactly which_UEFI_Secure_Boot does. Here's a guide.

[http://