Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I would prefer not to be "protected by a GPL licensed bootloader" from having a machine actually boot successfully under default conditions.

Pretty much ok with Fedora and Ubuntu making the best of a somewhat bad situation. I wish they'd just fix the standard to allow multiple signatures on code and extensions, though. With that, Secure Boot would be basically all positive.



I would prefer not to be "protected by a GPL licensed bootloader" from having a machine actually boot successfully under default conditions.

But Fedora's solution achieves both, so there's no need to leave GRUB2 for UEFI.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: