Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of?]

Jerry jerry at
Wed Jun 6 19:05:07 UTC 2012

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:49:53 -0400
Daniel Staal articulated:

>On 2012-06-05 17:20, Jerry wrote:
>> The question that I have not seen answered in this thread is what
>> FreeBSD intents to do. From what I have seen, most FreeBSD users do 
>> not
>> use the latest versions of most hardware, so it may be a while before
>> its user base is even effected.
>I don't believe at this point FreeBSD has any intent one way or 
>another, really.  It's not an immediate problem for any platform 
>supported by the FreeBSD project, at least for a technically-inclined 
>user who's willing to check out their BIOS.  (Even if they are using
>the latest hardware, the x86-derived platforms aren't going to require
>this code signing yet.)  So it'll probably be a 'wait and see if it's 
>something the FreeBSD community needs a solution for' at this point.  
>But this is just my impression.

I totally agree with you. Unfortunately that speaks to the sad state of
affairs that FreeBSD appears to be in. When it comes to supporting the
latest technologies, it tends to be behind the curve when compared to
other operating systems. Wireless networking and USB support are only a
few examples.

I don't know of any user personally who purchased a new PC and then
threw FreeBSD on it. Most users that I have come into contact with use
2+ year old units that have been replaced by shiny new Windows units. I
don't see that changing anytime soon.

Large companies would all ready have the infrastructure in place to
handle this sort of problem and as you pointed out would be working
with a *nix vendor that could properly meet their needs. Said vendor
would have all ready taken care of the UEFI Secure Boot problem.

>In slight defense of RedHat: They do a lot of worrying about
>enterprise and government customers, many of whom don't really care
>what platform they are running on - as long as they can get 'support'
>and it passes their security/operational tests.  In that environment,
>I can easily see some middle-manager decreeing that disabling the
>signed-boot process is verboten, without any understanding of the
>meaning or the consequences, and enforcing it on the whole
>company/division, to the point where any non-signed OS would be thrown
>out the door.  FreeBSD has probably already been thrown out the door
>at those types of locations, as there is no 'official' support
>channel.  (Yes, for my sins, I work at one of these...)

What sin? You use a product and want it properly supported. You have an
absolute right to that. Posting a message on a forum and hoping that
someone can answer it is not the type of support a business would want.

Jerry ♔

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list