Re: @AdamWill - As Gnome 3 requires systemd - NO THANKS
"If you guys were that great in changing the design of Secure Boot why didn't you change it to allow replacing the Microsoft public key ?"
The UEFI specification's Secure Boot definition does not make any requirements whatsoever regarding who should be the provider of the platform key, or any other key, or whether any keys at all should be provided in any particular firmware implementation.
The Microsoft labelling requirements explicitly require that the system owner be able to replace the Microsoft key. Look, they're right here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/jj128256.aspx
"On non-ARM systems, the platform MUST implement the ability for a physically present user to select between two Secure Boot modes in firmware setup: "Custom" and "Standard". Custom Mode allows for more flexibility as specified in the following:
A.It shall be possible for a physically present user to use the Custom Mode firmware setup option to modify the contents of the Secure Boot signature databases and the PK. This may be implemented by simply providing the option to clear all Secure Boot databases (PK, KEK, db, dbx), which puts the system into setup mode.
B.If the user ends up deleting the PK then, upon exiting the Custom Mode firmware setup, the system is operating in Setup Mode with SecureBoot turned off."
"Let's not forget that by doing what you did you prevented the rest of the Linux community to stand up and fight"
What do you mean by 'doing what we did'? And how did that prevent anyone else who gave a crap from pulling their finger out and doing something useful?