Comment 14 for bug 432785

On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 04:45:31PM -0000, Leo wrote:
> > I don't think it's a good policy to place unattended boot above all
> things.
>
> To clarify, I'm not saying unattended boot should be above all things.
>
> I'm saying that any change to be implemented should not affect the
> average user priving that user from this possibility.
>
> Preventing unattended boot is already possible with Ubuntu. You don't

That's not quite true: the default initrd does not work with dm-crypted
swap, just like mine.

> want unattended boot, fine. There are many solutions for you. The
> simplest one is to encrypt the whole disk, and you can also set up a
> password at the BIOS menu.

Neither is an option in my case. I just think dm-crypted swap should be
supported, along the other schemes.

> The point is not to enfoce that on every user.

Of course not. I'm just referring to the possibility of Ubuntu supporting
a standard Linux feature out of the box. Not to enforce it, or to prevent
other alternatives; quite the contrary.

> For me (and I guess for many people) it's important to be able to let my
> friends use my computer wihtout me having to jump over them saying "wait
> wait, I need to type the password", or even in my abscence. I'm fine

I completely agree, and I never said otherwise. I just think it's
important to support _both_ boot/resume schemes: unattended if possible,
and requiring manual intervention if not.

Which one should be used depends on the encryption setup.

Thanks,
  Alberto