On Jun 1, 2012, at 6:15 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Chris Murphy wrote:
b.) Disabling Secure Boot entirely for both operating systems.
That outcome is inherently user hostile on both counts.
I don't see how b would be hostile, at all, given that Matthew Garrett
(who has the insider
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 02:10:38AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Tomasz Torcz wrote:
Documenting the procedure may be viable after all. Kevin, could you start
writing such guides on Fedora wiki?
I cannot start documenting this before the first Secure-Boot-enabled
firmware actually ships.
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 02:24:35AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Michael scherer wrote:
For the record, UEFI based motherboard would likely have a graphical
interface, so no blueish DOS-like commandline thing.
Of course, that also permit endless graphical customisation.
See for example
john maclean píše v So 02. 06. 2012 v 06:07 +0100:
Setting up a private koji server. The keys and certs have been set up. Stuck
at psql stage. This command always bombs.
command
psql koji koji /usr/share/doc/koji*/docs/schema.sql
first this file is elsewhere
find / -iname
On 02/06/12 00:05, Tomas Mraz wrote:
But that is a pretty bad situation isn't it? And it really is not so
rare situation unless users would really know not to do that.
If, for the sake of discussion, I suppress my conservative instincts and
start thinking about How the ideal OS in the ideal
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 23:00:29 -0300, Adrian Alves wrote:
done I built it, check this out:
Spec URL: http://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/supercat.spec
Check this out:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
And the following page is _not_ just for reviewers: ;-)
Hello Bruno, hello Guillermo!
Are you still alive and well? What's up with dhcp_probe in Fedora?
Apparently, it has been unmaintained since its approval:
* Review Request: dhcp_probe - Tool for discover DHCP and BootP servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/624833
CLOSED ERRATA (2010-10-19)
On 06/02/2012 09:14 AM, Dan Horák wrote:
john maclean píše v So 02. 06. 2012 v 06:07 +0100:
Setting up a private koji server. The keys and certs have been set up. Stuck at
psql stage. This command always bombs.
command
psql koji koji /usr/share/doc/koji*/docs/schema.sql
first this file
Michael scherer m...@zarb.org wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 02:10:38AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Tomasz Torcz wrote:
Documenting the procedure may be viable after all. Kevin, could you start
writing such guides on Fedora wiki?
I cannot start documenting this before the first
Il 01/06/2012 18:42, Adam Williamson ha scritto:
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 10:37 +0200, Caterpillar wrote:
2012/5/31 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com
Third bug: after preupgrade finished to download fc17
packages, I
rebooted, but grub did not have a “upgrade system”
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 2:18 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
drago01 wrote:
Because it is *easier* for ordinary users to try and test fedora with
it (on new hardware).
i.e it increases the reach of free software instead of limiting it
(what you and others propose in the name of
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 10:14 +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
john maclean píše v So 02. 06. 2012 v 06:07 +0100:
Setting up a private koji server. The keys and certs have been set up.
Stuck at psql stage. This command always bombs.
command
psql koji koji
Mathieu Bridon píše v So 02. 06. 2012 v 19:34 +0800:
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 10:14 +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
john maclean píše v So 02. 06. 2012 v 06:07 +0100:
Setting up a private koji server. The keys and certs have been set up.
Stuck at psql stage. This command always bombs.
On 06/01/2012, Peter Jones wrote:
On 06/01/2012 12:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
We just need to provide a step-by-step guide for fixing your firmware
settings.
Apparently I get to explain this until I'm blue in the face: we don't
really believe that's a goal we can accomplish. Every vendor
Michael scherer wrote:
I would place less hope in interfaces designed by low level coders whose
main priority is to ship ASAP to take over the market by speed.
Neither would I think that fiddling with hardware settings with a
graphical interface would be much safer than with text interfaces.
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 12:48:55PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
We are all, Microsoft included, headed for signature-HELL.
This is going to gum up the entire x86 hardware ecosystem to such a
point and Microsoft will rue the day they ever dreamt up this
nonsense.
This.
Microsoft also forgets its
drago01 wrote:
You can even download the kernel source, study and modify it compile
and resign it and use it just fine with secureboot.
Either by using your own key or by using one from a CA (in this case
MS) for 99$.
The CA will only sign kernels meeting its arbitrary security requirements
Chris Murphy wrote:
Your renaming of the feature is quaint, but belies acceptance of the
problem the feature attempts to solve. You have an uphill road to
demonstrate the problem is inconsequential, or that there are better
alternatives.
Personal computing has existed for years without Secure
Based on the comments of this thread can a working group or sig be set up
to build on MG and Co's work to find the most workable solution that
preserves the reputation of the project.
If you had read the thread carefully, then people (Matthew, Peter, Tom) have
made it abundantly clear that if
Debarshi Ray rishi...@lostca.se wrote:
Based on the comments of this thread can a working group or sig be set up
to build on MG and Co's work to find the most workable solution that
preserves the reputation of the project.
If you had read the thread carefully, then people (Matthew, Peter,
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
Personal computing has existed for years without Secure Boot and the
purported security problem has never been a practical issue.
You must not have customers running Windows; today's malware is very
good at hiding. Secure Boot is
Hi all,
is there an easy way to test packages except of using
$ yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update package
For example, on May 30 a message reached the devel list that Pidgin
needs an update because of a security flaw. A new package was created
and needed karma in order to get pushed to
On 06/02/2012 05:32 AM, drago01 wrote:
Either by using your own key or by using one from a CA (in this case
MS) for 99$.
This is incorrect, btw. The $99 goes to verisign/Symantec. Microsoft is
subsidizing it considerably to get it down to that price, and they'd doing
much of the work on the
On 06/01/2012 07:56 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Peter Jones wrote:
We don't know what all firmwares' UI's will look like, and it's possible -
even somewhat reasonable - that instead of enable secure boot [X] some
vendors would implement it, for example, as [remove trusted key] or
possibly a combo
Hi,
Does anyone plan to package MATE 1.2[1] for Fedora? MATE is a promising
A Gnome 2.3 fork. If so I would like to be a co-maintainer. Or if
nobody is planning on it I'll gladly start the project with a little
help from a co-maintainer.
1) http://mate-desktop.org
Any interest please reply
Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org writes:
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 10:14 +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
as it seems the koji sql files are not packaged you must get them from
the koji source package
Not packaged?
$ yum whatprovides \*koji\*sql
[... snip ...]
koji-1.6.0-3.fc17.noarch :
Peter Jones wrote:
But I also think it's important for our distro to work out of the box on
new computers without having to do that. If we don't have that, people
will simply walk away.
And I don't think having to disable Secure Boot in the firmware is a
hurdle which will make our users
Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
is there an easy way to test packages except of using
$ yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update package
yum install yum-security
yum --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2012- update
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 17:00 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
is there an easy way to test packages except of using
$ yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update package
yum install yum-security
yum --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2012- update
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 10:21 -0400, Randall Berry wrote:
Does anyone plan to package MATE 1.2[1] for Fedora? MATE is a promising
A Gnome 2.3 fork. If so I would like to be a co-maintainer. Or if
nobody is planning on it I'll gladly start the project with a little
help from a co-maintainer.
I
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
And I don't think having to disable Secure Boot in the firmware is a
hurdle which will make our users simply walk away. I didn't simply walk
away either back in the day where RHL wouldn't boot without disabling the
Plug and Play
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:32 AM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
Or you don't do the later and just disable secureboot. Your freedom is
in *no way* limited by having secureboot support.
Let me repeat it again supporting secureboot on x86 does *NOT* limit
your freedom.
After all this
When I create a fork, respin, or remix of Fedora and distribute it to
people it will not run for them like Fedora does without a level of
fiddling which the people advocating this have made clear is entirely
unacceptable. This is because Fedora will be cryptographically
signing the
Once upon a time, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com said:
When I create a fork, respin, or remix of Fedora and distribute it to
people it will not run for them like Fedora does without a level of
fiddling which the people advocating this have made clear is entirely
unacceptable.
As I
On 06/02/2012 08:38 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
When I create a fork, respin, or remix of Fedora and distribute it to
people it will not run for them like Fedora does without a level of
fiddling which the people advocating this have made clear is entirely
unacceptable. This is because Fedora
My point was to be practical and attempt to get from base 1 to base 2 with
the aim of getting to base 4 down the road...
Is this not a sensible way forward?
It is not clear to me what base N stands for.
Happy hacking,
Debarshi
--
KR is like the Bible. The fervent read it from end to end,
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
The only Freedom you've lost is that now, in addition to the person-hours to
do the work and monetary cost to host your bits or generate physical media,
you have an additional cost if you wish to have your own cert that will be
accepted
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 04:57:20PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I didn't simply walk away either back in the day where RHL wouldn't
boot without disabling the Plug and Play operating system option in
the BIOS.
You're a pretty atypical case.
I found it perfectly normal that the firmware
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com said:
When I create a fork, respin, or remix of Fedora and distribute it to
people it will not run for them like Fedora does without a level of
fiddling which the people
On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 16:57:20 +0200
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Peter Jones wrote:
But I also think it's important for our distro to work out of the
box on new computers without having to do that. If we don't have
that, people will simply walk away.
And I don't think
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:24:51PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I'd like to now summon the folks arguing for this who earlier insisted
that Fedora was being upfront about the tradeoffs here to come argue
with people that there isn't a material loss of freedom. Being
upfront means not only
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 10:31:20AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
What happens if you try and boot an unsigned image? I assume the error
you get is up to the BIOS folks? So, it could be misleading, confusing,
depressing or all three. It may be that people will see just Failed to
secure boot and
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:18:17PM -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Hmm, will the package maintainers have the freedom to not support
users who have the secureboot enabled? How are we going to detect
this?
Any piece of userspace can read the SecureBoot and SetupMode variables
and check that
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:18:17PM -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Hmm, will the package maintainers have the freedom to not support
users who have the secureboot enabled? How are we going to detect
this?
Any piece of userspace can read
Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
However, I have one question left. Does the yum plugin download the
package directly from koji or do I have to wait until the package is
distributed to all mirrors (because the command still mentions the
updates-testing repo)?
Unfortunately, this also only
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:18:17PM -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Hmm, will the package maintainers have the freedom to not support
users who have the secureboot enabled? How are we going to detect
this?
Any piece of
On 06/02/2012 09:24 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
(Users would have to disable
yum's gpg checking in order to install your unsigned package, or they would
have to install/your/ gpg key and trust it in order to install the package
signed with your key).
I distribute modified copies of
Debarshi Ray wrote:
It is not clear to me what base N stands for.
As far as I can tell, it's baseball slang. Some people seem to think
everyone in the world knows how baseball is played.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
What happens if you try and boot an unsigned image? I assume the error
you get is up to the BIOS folks? So, it could be misleading, confusing,
depressing or all three. It may be that people will see just Failed to
secure boot and think there's something wrong with Fedora.
On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 18:53:14 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Unfortunately, this also only works once the package is actually pushed to
updates-testing. That's of course because yum still pulls it from updates-
testing (yum cannot pull directly from Koji as the required metadata is not
there),
Something similar already was requested:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563285
Please look there also for some mentioned alternatives in comments.
02.06.2012 17:40, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
Hi all,
is there an easy way to test packages except of using
$ yum
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 17:36:47 +0100
Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 10:31:20AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
What happens if you try and boot an unsigned image? I assume the
error you get is up to the BIOS folks? So, it could be misleading,
confusing,
Am 02.06.2012 04:08, schrieb Jesse Keating:
On 06/01/2012 09:04 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
no, you do NOT want swap-usage in most workloads at all
The useless 2G file will get swapped out, not important things that are
actively being used in ram
it does not matter WHAT get swapped out
from
inode0 wrote:
Doing this in my mind should not be allowed as it discriminates
against a subset of users. Whether this is legally allowed or not I
hope no one would consider doing it.
I agree. Either Fedora supports Secure Boot or it doesn't, doing this per
package is a very bad idea (unless
On 06/02/2012 03:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Mathieu Bridonboche...@fedoraproject.org writes:
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 10:14 +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
as it seems the koji sql files are not packaged you must get them from
the koji source package
Not packaged?
$ yum whatprovides \*koji\*sql
[... snip
On 02/06/12 14:40, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
Hi all,
is there an easy way to test packages except of using
$ yum --enablerepo=updates-testing updatepackage
Hopefully this may be a step in the right direction.
Have put in an rfe for Security as a yum config option.
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
it does not matter WHAT get swapped out
from the moment on the system starts to swap performance sucks
This is what I meant about being dogmatic up thread. You're being a
anti-swap zealot here.
Yes, using swap is
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said:
Am 02.06.2012 04:08, schrieb Jesse Keating:
The useless 2G file will get swapped out, not important things that are
actively being used in ram
it does not matter WHAT get swapped out
from the moment on the system starts to swap
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
inode0 wrote:
Doing this in my mind should not be allowed as it discriminates
against a subset of users. Whether this is legally allowed or not I
hope no one would consider doing it.
I agree. Either Fedora supports Secure Boot
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
inode0 wrote:
Doing this in my mind should not be allowed as it discriminates
against a subset of users. Whether this is legally allowed or not I
hope no one would consider doing it.
I agree. Either Fedora supports Secure Boot or it
Am 02.06.2012 19:24, schrieb Gregory Maxwell:
Tmpfs just has the advantage of minimizing the disk activity— both in
cases where none is needed, and in cases where it is.
you refuse to understand if some app creates a 2 GB
file in /tmp and does not remove your only pressure
is to the page-cache
On 06/02/2012 11:05 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
I am more concerned about the package maintenance level. At the
package maintenance level, it does not make sense to patch against the
upstream decision. On the other hand, a package maintainer should have
the right to not support users filing
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
drago01 wrote:
You can even download the kernel source, study and modify it compile
and resign it and use it just fine with secureboot.
Either by using your own key or by using one from a CA (in this case
MS) for 99$.
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
You are responsible as a package maintainer for bugs against
the package. If you don't want to deal with it, give up the package or
find a co-maintainer who will deal with such issues. When you work
within a community, it is a project
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 14:02 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
You are responsible as a package maintainer for bugs against
the package. If you don't want to deal with it, give up the package or
find a co-maintainer who will deal with such
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:32 AM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
Or you don't do the later and just disable secureboot. Your freedom is
in *no way* limited by having secureboot support.
Let me repeat it again supporting
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote:
Basically the same kind of failure as the last several times I did updates.
This time f16-f17. Used preupgrade.
I'd like to share with you my experience about installing Fedora
17/x86_64. It is a real PITA. No doubts
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 14:02 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
You are responsible as a package maintainer for bugs against
the package. If you don't want to deal with it, give up the
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
inode0 wrote:
Doing this in my mind should not be allowed as it discriminates
against a subset of users. Whether this is legally allowed or not I
hope no one would
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 2:26 PM, drago01 wrote:
Simply refusing to run because secureboot is enabled (unless there are
technical reasons) is simply limiting the users freedom in the name
of freedom which is unacceptable.
I am making a clear distinction between simply refusing to run and
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 14:26 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
That is not the answer to my question (hint: read the question).
Indeed, it is not, but do you really want to put in the CLA the
responsibilities of every role past present and future available in the
project ?
Meaning that every time one
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 14:26 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
That is not the answer to my question (hint: read the question).
Indeed, it is not, but do you really want to put in the CLA the
responsibilities of every role past present and
On Jun 2, 2012, at 5:56 AM, Pedro Lamarão wrote:
Who exactly is this We person who cannot accomplish the goal of
dealing with multiple vendors shipping multiple interfaces on
different machines?
The Free Software Movement certainly can.
This is very naive, IMO. Where is the influence of
On Jun 1, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
On 06/01/2012 01:22 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Is UEFI Secure Boot really the only way to prevent the problem it attempts to
solve, and if so, what about the plethora of BIOS hardware in the world
today, still even shipping as new systems? They're
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
Per spec the machine simply falls back to attempting to execute the next
entry in the boot list. An implementation may provide some feedback that
that's the case, but there's no requirement for it to do so, so it's
Hi.
On Tue, 29 May 2012 16:42:30 -0400, Neal Becker wrote
1) Could I have actually recovered from this mess without a complete
re-install?
There is a way to recover from (almost) all upgrade messes, although
it has several preconditions.
The first precondition is having a root file system on
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 15:28:03 -0400
Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
If the issue were just the opaque and unpredictable behavior on
failure this could be addressed without signing any of the
distribution proper.
Create a pre-bootloder. If secureboot is enabled only permitting
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 03:28:03PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
This should meet the signing requirements and it removes the opacity
without locking down any of Fedora. Such a bootloader should meet
whatever requirements to get signed, since if secureboot is turned on
it wont boot anything
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 03:28:03PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
This should meet the signing requirements and it removes the opacity
without locking down any of Fedora. Such a bootloader should meet
whatever
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 04:08:45PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
But you're happy to sacrifice the freedom for people to modify the error
text that's provided? What's your threshold?
I'm not quite sure where my
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
That's fine as long as you speak English.
Come on now, you're building a strawman argument. I never said that it
had to be in a single language—notice messages I _normally_ write get
put into many languages.
I don't see
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
I think regressing to the installs
being somewhat easier than ten yearsish ago is still a better place to
be than the cryptographic lockdown.
I disagree and once again it is not a lockdown as people who care
enough can
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:26 PM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
I think regressing to the installs
being somewhat easier than ten yearsish ago is still a better place to
be than the cryptographic lockdown.
I disagree
Le samedi 02 juin 2012 à 09:46 +0100, phantomjinx a écrit :
Michael scherer m...@zarb.org wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 02:10:38AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Tomasz Torcz wrote:
Documenting the procedure may be viable after all. Kevin, could
you start
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 05:14:12PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
When it comes down to it, your drawing the line argument just
doesn't make sense. There is always injustice in the world. If you
want to be pedantic, anyone who ever seeks a more lawful or more
ethical path is simply drawing a
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
You're fine with one level of injustice. I'm fine with another level of
injustice. Both compromise the freedoms that Fedora currently gives you.
I'm not fine with it. It's an unfortunate situation too. But producing
a
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 06:09:15PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I'm not fine with it. It's an unfortunate situation too. But producing
a single special case trivial display program for users who couldn't
run anything which was truly free at all is hardly comparable to
cryptographically
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
You're fine with one level of injustice. I'm fine with another level of
injustice. Both compromise the freedoms that Fedora currently gives you.
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:26 PM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
I think regressing to the installs
being somewhat easier than ten yearsish ago
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
You're fine with one level of injustice. I'm fine with another level of
injustice. Both compromise the freedoms that Fedora currently gives you.
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 6:23 PM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
It can be argued both ways. Modifying software requires more skills
and knowlegde anyway so it is more acceptable to accept that group of
people to fiddle with the firmware then everyone including people that
don't even know what
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
[No disrespect intended, but I'm not point by pointing the rest
because I think the educated reader could easily enough anticipate my
responses from the past thread, we're becoming circular again]
Yeah that's fine we
On 06/02/2012 11:27 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Kevin Koflerkevin.kof...@chello.at said:
And I don't think having to disable Secure Boot in the firmware is a
hurdle which will make our users simply walk away. I didn't simply walk
away either back in the day where RHL wouldn't boot
On 06/02/2012 05:26 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Gregory Maxwellgmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
I think regressing to the installs
being somewhat easier than ten yearsish ago is still a better place to
be than the cryptographic lockdown.
I disagree and once again it is not
Once upon a time, Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com said:
Who are these users? I have been using Linux since 0.99 while working with
many users of Windows,none of them
expressed an interest in trying linux.
Well, we obviously have different friends. I've got lots of technical
friends (and
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 07:51:52PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
Who are these potential users? How many people running windows have you
convinced to also
load Linux? I have been using Linux since 0.99 and have not been able to
convince any to use Linux.
It's possible that this says more about
On 06/02/2012 07:55 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Steve Clarkscl...@netwolves.com said:
Who are these users? I have been using Linux since 0.99 while working with
many users of Windows,none of them
expressed an interest in trying linux.
Well, we obviously have different
On 06/02/2012 08:20 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 07:51:52PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
Who are these potential users? How many people running windows have you
convinced to also
load Linux? I have been using Linux since 0.99 and have not been able to
convince any to use
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 08:43:41PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
On 06/02/2012 08:20 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 07:51:52PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
Who are these potential users? How many people running windows have you
convinced to also
load Linux? I have been using
Michael Scherer wrote:
And I think no one would be happy if someone start to use some stuff
like Bluepill ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Pill_%28software%29 )
to root them.
You can be blue-pilled purely from userspace, which Secure Boot does not
protect at all. Ever heard of software
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
