Re: The Achilles Heel Of Secure Boot: Certificate Revocation
[email protected] (Scott Dorsey)
| Newsgroups | comp.misc |
|---|---|
| Organization | Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Richard Kettlewell <[email protected]> wrote: >than leading it. The idea that UEFI was some kind of Microsoft >compatibility-breaking conspiracy is not well supported by the history. >The reality is BIOS needed to be replaced, and the entire computer >industry understood this. BIOS needed to be replaced.... but how we wound up with UEFI was in great part due to requirements laid down by specific vendors. And in the end what we got was a step -down- from the terrible legacy BIOS rather than an actual improvement for typical work. It did have the features that Microsoft demanded from Intel, and a lot of other features besides. Way too many features, in fact. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."