they DO currently have that freedom - by disabling secure boot.
if the user has it enabled, the OS should assume they want it to work as intended.
was there a better way to do this? absolutely, without question. but to suggest that this situation should not cause a failure to boot is not the answer here. (that was a double negative. to rephrase: this particular combination of circumstances _absolutely should_ cause a no-boot situation.)
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2024-08-24 05:54 am (UTC)if the user has it enabled, the OS should assume they want it to work as intended.
was there a better way to do this? absolutely, without question. but to suggest that this situation should not cause a failure to boot is not the answer here. (that was a double negative. to rephrase: this particular combination of circumstances _absolutely should_ cause a no-boot situation.)