Linus Torvalds writes: (Summary) It took closer to a hundred emails (ok, so
I'm exaggerating, but not _that_ much) until the *real* reason for the
tie-in was actually exposed.
tie-in was actually exposed.
For the first 50+ emails, the explanation was "oh, only if you do secure boot does this make sense".
secure boot does this make sense".
Which is still pure BULLSHIT. So instead of the bullshit explanations, just explain the purely _practical_ side.
_practical_ side.
Because I find it a *lot* more convincing to hear:
Because I find it a *lot* more convincing to hear:
"We'd like to just enable it all the time, but it's known to break some unusual hardware cases that we can't fix in software, and we wanted *some* way to disable it that requires explicit and verified user intervention to do that, and disabling secure boot is the easiest hack we could come up with".
easiest hack we could come up with".
See?
tie-in was actually exposed.
For the first 50+ emails, the explanation was "oh, only if you do secure boot does this make sense".
secure boot does this make sense".
Which is still pure BULLSHIT. So instead of the bullshit explanations, just explain the purely _practical_ side.
_practical_ side.
Because I find it a *lot* more convincing to hear:
Because I find it a *lot* more convincing to hear:
"We'd like to just enable it all the time, but it's known to break some unusual hardware cases that we can't fix in software, and we wanted *some* way to disable it that requires explicit and verified user intervention to do that, and disabling secure boot is the easiest hack we could come up with".
easiest hack we could come up with".
See?