[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ale] OT: micro mini nano PC
- Subject: [ale] OT: micro mini nano PC
- From: DJPfulio at jdpfu.com (DJ-Pfulio)
- Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2016 18:44:50 -0500
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <CABo2fvAZCaGZx-8MuwXWYx+tM4_NV4zouRFw5M1j=jBCTVAyiA@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CAEo=5PzUa2PCmirqxTri7KvjTGAfPdDQ3bog9QjXCNSJMZDxpw@mail.gmail.com> <CABo2fvCPy+XKKvQv+n=5NQG_C+s4+GcYbsi+Ot1p1D83r680-A@mail.gmail.com> <CAPfJb3r8v1H=ONVyWZUJvgVPheQLFw3_zhmSojsfxWCj9LJ_ug@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CAEo=5Px30Fn1rtePJPzab0mxm7=03sO3bmbhO52Do8nSfWq=-Q@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
SecureBoot is recommended for Linux Workstations by the Linux
Foundation. It is a good idea for everyone, not just Windows.
https://github.com/lfit/itpol/blob/master/linux-workstation-security.md
Checklist
* System supports SecureBoot (ESSENTIAL)
* System has no firewire, thunderbolt or ExpressCard ports (NICE)
* System has a TPM chip (NICE)
So - it appears a $230 Chromebook (1080p screen) meets these conditions.
Nice!
That doesn't mean those corporate overlords (LF overlords) don't have
ulterior motives, but it probably does mean that MSFT isn't the only one.
On 01/30/16 16:56, Steve Litt wrote:
> My personal suspicion has always been that Microsoft's motivation for
> secure boot was anti-Linux, anti-BSD monopolism. The harder they can
> make it to boot Linux, the less people will run Linux.
>