On 06/08/2012 06:37 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 18:14 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 06/08/2012 05:42 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
And - though it pains me that this next thought might actually be
unpopular, though closer investigation might reveal that I'm giving the
feature too
On 08/06/12 15:00, drago01 wrote:
Doubt that as they have near zero market power in that segment right
now. One of the leaders in that space is selling locked down devices
and nobody seems to care.
Just for the record, according to the European law, it is illegal to
create hindrance for free
On 06/08/2012 08:07 AM, Mario Torre wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked
down platform; the answer to Fedora on ARM is don't buy a Win8 ARM
system and expect to run Fedora.
One should be very, very
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 06/08/2012 08:07 AM, Mario Torre wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked
down platform; the answer to Fedora on ARM is don't buy a
On 06/08/2012 09:00 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 06/08/2012 08:07 AM, Mario Torre wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked
down platform;
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 06/08/2012 09:00 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 06/08/2012 08:07 AM, Mario Torre wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
that would not allow
On 06/08/2012 09:20 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 06/08/2012 09:00 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 06/08/2012 08:07 AM, Mario Torre wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34
Once upon a time, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net said:
And I expect this idea of preventing other OS's from being installed on Win8
ARM hardware will not fly in the EU. It's
anti-competitive.
You mean they don't have iPads and Android tablets in the EU?
--
Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net
On 06/08/2012 10:11 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net said:
And I expect this idea of preventing other OS's from being installed on Win8
ARM hardware will not fly in the EU. It's
anti-competitive.
You mean they don't have iPads and Android tablets in the
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 15:16 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com said:
If there are ARM machines where UEFI and Secure Boot are available,
we're going to have tools to do your own trust database management
anyway, so why would supporting them be any
On 06/08/2012 04:24 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 15:16 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com said:
If there are ARM machines where UEFI and Secure Boot are available,
we're going to have tools to do your own trust database management
anyway,
On Jun 8, 2012, at 6:47 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
And I expect this idea of preventing other OS's from being installed on Win8
ARM hardware will not fly in the EU. It's
anti-competitive.
There's no such prevention. It's just that by voluntary agreement some ARM
hardware is being manufactured
On Jun 8, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 06/08/2012 10:11 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
You mean they don't have iPads and Android tablets in the EU?
They do. And there are certainly anti-competitive claims that can be made
related to certain ARM platforms.
I don't think
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 16:29 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 06/08/2012 04:24 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
And? I wasn't speaking to we should sign our arm images with
Microsoft's key, I was speaking to we should support Secure Boot on
arm. If someone wants to build an arm machine with SB support
On 06/08/2012 11:55 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jun 8, 2012, at 6:47 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
And I expect this idea of preventing other OS's from being installed on Win8
ARM hardware will not fly in the EU. It's
anti-competitive.
There's no such prevention. It's just that by voluntary
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 14:07 +0200, Mario Torre wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked
down platform; the answer to Fedora on ARM is don't buy a Win8 ARM
system and expect to run Fedora.
One
On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 14:07 +0200, Mario Torre wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked
down platform; the answer to Fedora on ARM is don't buy a Win8 ARM
On 06/08/2012 05:42 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 16:29 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 06/08/2012 04:24 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
And? I wasn't speaking to we should sign our arm images with
Microsoft's key, I was speaking to we should support Secure Boot on
arm. If someone
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 01:07:20PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
there's been precious little indication.
There is a tidal wave of these PC ARM devices coming:
http://www.itworld.com/hardware/240039/qualcomm-targets-pcs-takes-aim-intels-ultrabooks
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 13:07 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 14:07 +0200, Mario Torre wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked
down
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 18:14 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 06/08/2012 05:42 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
And - though it pains me that this next thought might actually be
unpopular, though closer investigation might reveal that I'm giving the
feature too much credit, and without considering or
On Jun 8, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
No. It's entirely anti-competitive:
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/blog/2012/jan/12/microsoft-confirms-UEFI-fears-locks-down-ARM/
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/
You're confusing restriction of user choice and
On Friday, 8 בJune 2012 20:07:20 Gerry Reno wrote:
On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
That is only assuming that Windows on ARM is successful, of which so far
there's been precious little indication.
There is a tidal wave of these PC ARM devices coming:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Oron Peled o...@actcom.co.il wrote:
On Friday, 8 בJune 2012 20:07:20 Gerry Reno wrote:
On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
That is only assuming that Windows on ARM is successful, of which so
far
there's been precious little indication.
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Gerry Reno gr...@verizon.net wrote:
On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 14:07 +0200, Mario Torre wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Richard Vickery
richard.vicker...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Oron Peled o...@actcom.co.il wrote:
On Friday, 8 בJune 2012 20:07:20 Gerry Reno wrote:
On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
That is only assuming that Windows on
On Saturday, 9 בJune 2012 00:47:30 Richard Vickery wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Oron Peled o...@actcom.co.il wrote:
On Friday, 8 בJune 2012 20:07:20 Gerry Reno wrote:
On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
That is only assuming that Windows on ARM is successful, of
What is Fedora ARM planning to do about the upcoming Microsoft hardware
certification spec requiring Secure Boot? By the spec, there must be a
way to disable it on x86, but on ARM they expressly prohibit turning it
off. I guess the current Fedora/RedHat stance, as explained by Matthew
Garrett,
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Przemek Klosowski
przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote:
What is Fedora ARM planning to do about the upcoming Microsoft hardware
certification spec requiring Secure Boot? By the spec, there must be a way
to disable it on x86, but on ARM they expressly prohibit turning
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 01:14:57PM -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
What is Fedora ARM planning to do about the upcoming Microsoft
hardware certification spec requiring Secure Boot? By the spec,
there must be a way to disable it on x86, but on ARM they expressly
prohibit turning it off. I guess
Once upon a time, Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosow...@nist.gov said:
What is Fedora ARM planning to do about the upcoming Microsoft hardware
certification spec requiring Secure Boot? By the spec, there must be a
way to disable it on x86, but on ARM they expressly prohibit turning it
off. I
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Przemek Klosowski
przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote:
What is Fedora ARM planning to do about the upcoming Microsoft hardware
certification spec requiring Secure Boot? By the spec, there must be a way
to disable it on x86, but on ARM they expressly prohibit turning
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 13:14 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
What is Fedora ARM planning to do about the upcoming Microsoft hardware
certification spec requiring Secure Boot? By the spec, there must be a
way to disable it on x86, but on ARM they expressly prohibit turning it
off. I guess the
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 21:12 +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Przemek Klosowski
przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote:
What is Fedora ARM planning to do about the upcoming Microsoft hardware
certification spec requiring Secure Boot? By the spec, there must be a way
to
Once upon a time, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com said:
If there are ARM machines where UEFI and Secure Boot are available,
we're going to have tools to do your own trust database management
anyway, so why would supporting them be any different from doing the
same on x86?
For Windows 8
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 21:12 +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Przemek Klosowski
przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote:
What is Fedora ARM planning to do about the upcoming Microsoft hardware
certification
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:30 PM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 21:12 +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Przemek Klosowski
przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote:
What is Fedora ARM
Przemek Klosowski writes:
What is Fedora ARM planning to do about the upcoming Microsoft hardware
certification spec requiring Secure Boot?
Why, all they have to do is simply pay another $99. Problem solved.
So, what is the current thinking?
The current consensus seems to be that
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 07:41:32PM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Przemek Klosowski writes:
What is Fedora ARM planning to do about the upcoming Microsoft
hardware certification spec requiring Secure Boot?
Why, all they have to do is simply pay another $99. Problem solved.
We wouldn't even
39 matches
Mail list logo
