From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:   
   > In comp.misc, Lawrence D'Oliveiro  wrote:   
   >> One of the key things regularly trumpeted about Linux is about its   
   >> ability to give new life to old machines.   
   >   
   > Disabling secure boot is an option in many, if not most, devices. I have   
   > done it many times, even on a Surface tablet.   
      
   The page linked earlier also discusses firmware updates, either direct   
   from vendors or via LVFS, which AFAICT would address the old devices   
   issue without compromising security, although I can’t see that stated   
   explicitly.   
      
   The <1% devices where it doesn’t work will presumably have to disable   
   Secure Boot, yes.   
      
   > Not all distros have signed loaders, so if you do need to use the   
   > secure boot, you could be locked in to one of the big names.   
   >   
   > The only real use case for secure boot is part of defense in depth   
   > from someone who can get physical access to machine. Or to try to lock   
   > owners out of their hardware, but who would do that?   
      
   It’s valuable (when combined with FDE) to anyone at risk of device theft   
   or insider threat, which means anyone with a phone or laptop, and any   
   nontrivial organization.   
      
   Installing Linux on an obsolete PC is a niche use case, just one that   
   happens to be well-represented in Usenet.   
      
   --   
   https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)