Recent Windows updates caused certain bootloaders to make the blacklist, I just had an argument that went like: why wasn't there a shim update when MS announced this in April?
And then someone kept insisting that when the Secure Boot feature was designed Linux distributors did not name an authority for signing and thus it was their own fault. Sounds wrong to me as usually MS strongarms the rest of the world out of platform control ans I suspect much the same happened with Secure Boot, but I wouldn't know. Does someone know how this went politically "back then"? Dex
