<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Secure-Boot on Karpoke - Just Another Blog</title><link>http://karpoke.ignaciocano.com/tags/secure-boot/</link><description>Recent content in Secure-Boot on Karpoke - Just Another Blog</description><generator>Hugo -- 0.167.0</generator><language>es</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2012 14:33:00 +0100</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="http://karpoke.ignaciocano.com/tags/secure-boot/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Free Software Foundation recommendations for free operating system distributions considering Secure Boot</title><link>http://karpoke.ignaciocano.com/2012/07/06/free-software-foundation-recommendations-for-free-operating-system-distributions-considering-secure-boot/</link><pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2012 14:33:00 +0100</pubDate><guid>http://karpoke.ignaciocano.com/2012/07/06/free-software-foundation-recommendations-for-free-operating-system-distributions-considering-secure-boot/</guid><description>&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;We have been working hard the last several months to stop Restricted
Boot, a major threat to user freedom, free software ideals, and free
software adoption. Under the guise of security, a computer afflicted
with Restricted Boot refuses to boot any operating systems other than
the ones the computer distributor has approved in advance. Restricted
Boot takes control of the computer away from the user and puts it in
the hands of someone else.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To respect user freedom and truly protect user security, computer
makers must either provide users a way of disabling such boot
restrictions, or provide a sure-fire way that allows the computer user
to install a free software operating system of her choice.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Distributors of restricted systems usually appeal to security
concerns. They claim that if unapproved software can be used on the
machines they sell, malware will run amok. By only allowing software
they approve to run, they can protect us.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This claim ignores the fact that we need protection from them. We
don’t want a machine that only runs software approved by them &amp;ndash; our
computers should always run only software approved by us. We may
choose to trust someone else to help us make those approval decisions,
but we should never be locked into that relationship by force of
technological restriction or law. Software that enforces such
restrictions is malware. Companies like Microsoft that push these
restrictions also have a terrible track record when it comes to
security, which makes their platitudes about restricting us for our
own good both hollow and deceitful.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>