Daniel Pittman <daniel@rimspace.net> wrote:
Well, assuming that the vendors are lazy, yeah. Which /probably/ isn't a stated goal, but might not be a think. Personally, I suspect that the vendors will have an option to turn it off in the configuration whatever, so you can install whatever on it. Because Linux is enough of a server OS, these days, that the low margin, high volume vendors probably don't want to go down the path of cutting off part of their business, and producing two different EFI implementations would cut into that.
I agree with your assessment. I think Matthew Garrett's point, if I understand it correctly, is that some, but not all vendors will implement the minimum necessary for Windows compliance and hence not include the option to disable secure booting. Given his vast experience of what BIOS writers do, I'm strongly inclined to give weight to that prediction.