On 06/18/2012 01:21 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 18.06.2012 19:18, schrieb Adam Williamson:
I hesitate to put words in people's mouths, and correct me if I'm wrong,
but it reads to me as if Jay and others are arguing from an incorrect
That premise is to assume that there is a God-given right
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:21:40 +0200, you wrote:
Am 18.06.2012 19:18, schrieb Adam Williamson:
I hesitate to put words in people's mouths, and correct me if I'm wrong,
but it reads to me as if Jay and others are arguing from an incorrect
That premise is to assume that there is a God-given
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 17:04 -0400, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:21:40 +0200, you wrote:
Am 18.06.2012 19:18, schrieb Adam Williamson:
I hesitate to put words in people's mouths, and correct me if I'm wrong,
but it reads to me as if Jay and others are arguing from an
Jay Sulzberger j...@panix.com writes:
If I understand correctly, Fedora has now formally allowed
Microsoft to lock Fedora out of many coming ARM devices.
As I understand it, you have the freedom to purchase a $99 key from
Microsoft which you can then use to install Fedora on those locked ARM
On Jun 18, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Re-reading my paragraph above, I admit I phrased it somewhat badly. A
convincing case could at least be made, under the first sale doctrine,
that you have the right to _try_ and retrofit alternative operating
systems onto any device you
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
What I should have said is that we have no God-given right to demand
that any computing device offered for sale must be explicitly designed
to accommodate the retrofitting of other operating systems or software,
or
On Jun 18, 2012, at 4:08 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
If I don't agree to the license, then I'm not to use the software.
The iOS license says if I don't agree to the license, then I'm not to use the
*hardware*. Haha. The most specious aspect of SLA's, however, is the phrasing
by using the
Am 17.06.2012 01:14, schrieb Chris Murphy:
Please provide an example of a better option, with sufficient detail as to
constitute a successful relay of the baton.
The point of the thread from the outset was to explore alternatives, but so
far those alternatives are vaporware.
why do people
On Jun 16, 2012, at 6:36 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
Calls for speculation. We know what the certification policy used to be. We
also know how long DOJ takes to do anything, let alone politicking behind
the scenes
On Jun 16, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 17.06.2012 01:14, schrieb Chris Murphy:
Please provide an example of a better option, with sufficient detail as to
constitute a successful relay of the baton.
The point of the thread from the outset was to explore alternatives, but so
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
It was justified. Only one is speculation. The other utilizes evidence and a
track record of behavior.
... Right, In one case the actual participants in the discussion have
expressed doubt that they had any effect,
Am 17.06.2012 19:16, schrieb Chris Murphy:
On Jun 16, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 17.06.2012 01:14, schrieb Chris Murphy:
Please provide an example of a better option, with sufficient detail as to
constitute a successful relay of the baton.
The point of the thread from
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
you are aware that on ARM platform is NO DISABLE SECURE BOOT allowed
this is not future requirement
this is CURRENT requirement for Win8 on ARM
It was also the original requirement on x86 before negative PR was
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:51:32 -0400
Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Reindl Harald
h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
you are aware that on ARM platform is NO DISABLE SECURE BOOT allowed
this is not future requirement
this is CURRENT requirement for
On Jun 17, 2012, at 11:25 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 17.06.2012 19:16, schrieb Chris Murphy:
What I believe is irrelevant. You're proposing emotional reaction based
on a future hardware requirement that has not been proposed,
is not in the interest of Microsoft or their OEMs
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
you are aware that on ARM platform is NO DISABLE SECURE BOOT allowed
this is not future requirement
this is CURRENT requirement for Win8 on
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 17.06.2012 01:14, schrieb Chris Murphy:
Please provide an example of a better option, with sufficient detail as to
constitute a successful relay of the baton.
The point of the thread from the outset was to
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
Am 17.06.2012 01:14, schrieb Chris Murphy:
Please provide an example of
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 17.06.2012 01:14, schrieb Chris Murphy:
Please provide an example of a better
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
Am 17.06.2012 01:14, schrieb
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:21:14 -0400 (EDT)
Jay Sulzberger j...@panix.com wrote:
I think 50 million dollars toward buying, and properly arranging
the UEFI, of several lots of x86 computers would indeed solve
part of the problem you point out.
Why not?
Why? 50million dollars is a big order,
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 22:01:53 -0400, you wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
Am 17.06.2012 01:14,
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:21:14 -0400 (EDT)
Jay Sulzberger j...@panix.com wrote:
I think 50 million dollars toward buying, and properly arranging
the UEFI, of several lots of x86 computers would indeed solve
part of the problem you point
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:21:14 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
Am 17.06.2012 01:14,
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 00:09:37 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:21:14 -0400 (EDT)
Jay Sulzberger j...@panix.com wrote:
I think 50 million dollars toward buying, and properly arranging
the UEFI, of several lots of x86
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen ghenr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 22:01:53 -0400, you wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen ghenr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:21:14 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:21:14PM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
I think 50 million dollars toward buying, and properly arranging
the UEFI, of several lots of x86 computers would indeed solve
part of the problem you point out.
Why not?
Because said machines would cost more than identical
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:52:48PM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
So why does the SecureBoot private key require a so much higher
cost of administration?
Fedora's keys are currently only relevant on hardware where users have
voluntarialy installed Fedora. If all x86 machines shipped with a
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Jay Sulzberger j...@panix.com wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen ghenr...@gmail.com wrote:
Not to mention that you are effectively telling anyone not currently
using Red Hat Hardware that they can't run Linux, thus eliminating
the ability to gain
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:41:20AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
We do not have to have every motherboard work well with free
software. But we do need at least one, and we hope many.
What market share Linux has is storngly infuenced by people's ability to
install Linux on computers that they
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen ghenr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 00:09:37 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:21:14 -0400 (EDT)
Jay Sulzberger j...@panix.com wrote:
I think 50 million dollars toward
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:54:56AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
But the best thing is that a free software UEFI would let anybody put
their own key as hardware root, and this would stymie the
rationalizing of big shots holding root and granting signing services
to their hardware.
All UEFI
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:56:54AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
We just need hardware we can install Fedora on, as once we did,
without asking Microsoft for permission.
System76 have committed to providing hardware without pre-enabled secure
boot.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:54:56AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
But the best thing is that a free software UEFI would let anybody put
their own key as hardware root, and this would stymie the
rationalizing of big shots
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:21:14PM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
I think 50 million dollars toward buying, and properly arranging
the UEFI, of several lots of x86 computers would indeed solve
part of the problem you point
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:00:33AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:54:56AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
But the best thing is that a free software UEFI would let anybody put
their own key as
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:09:52AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
The game is now just about over. What if one day, Microsoft
makes it even harder to install Fedora without a Microsoft
controlled key? What if, as has already happened with ARM,
Microsoft refuses to grant Fedora a special key?
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:00:33AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:54:56AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
But the
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:09:52AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
The game is now just about over. What if one day, Microsoft
makes it even harder to install Fedora without a Microsoft
controlled key? What if, as has
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:16:37AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
The machine will have a functional UEFI implementation. Why would we
want to replace it?
Um, because you're not asking permission?
I'm sorry, I
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:17:19AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:09:52AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
The game is now just about over. What if one day, Microsoft
makes it even harder to
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Seth Johnson seth.p.john...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:00:33AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Jay Sulzberger j...@panix.com wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Nicu Buculei nicu_fed...@nicubunu.ro
wrote:
On 06/12/2012 12:58 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Nicu
On Jun 16, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Richard Vickery wrote:
Why do we need to bring Microsoft into this, much less listen to, or
communicate with them? Forget about them.
Ahh, the Ostrich Maneuver.
Had this been the policy of others working on this issue, Microsoft would not
have updated their
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
Ahh, the Ostrich Maneuver.
Had this been the policy of others working on this issue, Microsoft would
not have updated their Windows 8 certification to require the user be able
to disable Secure Boot. And then we'd
On Jun 16, 2012, at 5:44 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Or, perhaps, they would have found themselves behind the gun-sights of
the DOJ again and dropped the whole thing in order to avoid years of
costly antitrust litigation. (Or do you think they would have backed
off at all, just because
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
Calls for speculation. We know what the certification policy used to be. We
also know how long DOJ takes to do anything, let alone politicking behind the
scenes to arrive at compromise, let alone its day in court.
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Jun 16, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Richard Vickery wrote:
Why do we need to bring Microsoft into this, much less listen to, or
communicate with them? Forget about them.
Ahh, the Ostrich Maneuver.
Had this been the policy of
Jesse Keating wrote:
The point in which you find yourself arguing over the semantics of
Goodwin's law is also a clear indication that the thread has lost any
amount of usefulness.
Godwin's Meta-Law? Or maybe Keating's Corollary to Godwin's Law?
--
devel mailing list
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
The point in which you find yourself arguing over the semantics of
Goodwin's law is also a clear indication that the thread has lost any amount
of usefulness.
Godwin's Meta-Law? Or maybe Keating's Corollary to
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012, Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:46 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Please forgive this top posting.
I will not answer now your radical defense of Microsoft, except to
say two things:
1. Your defense would apply also to the
On 06/15/2012 12:05 PM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012, Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:46 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Please forgive this top posting.
I will not answer now your radical defense of Microsoft, except to
say two things:
1.
On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 12:05 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
In the case of ARM devices Microsoft's statement of its position
is different: If the ARM device is shipped with a Microsoft OS,
then Fedora will never be installed on the device. No putting
one's own key in, no getting a special
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:36:15AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 06/15/2012 10:31 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
+1
This really isn't adding anything to the discussion, just noise. Please
stop replying to large emails, quoting the entire thing, and just adding
a +1. It's not helpful.
+1
Hi.
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 22:13:49 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I hereby declare this thread officially dead.
Is there a Godwin's Law equivalent that applies to the invocation of
the 'GNU/ debate'?
We could call it the 'RMS recurrence'.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 04:19 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 10:25 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I am inclined to believe, the spirit behind Linux has changed, changed
away from being
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:13 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 04:19 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 10:25 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I am inclined to believe, the spirit behind Linux has changed, changed
away
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org wrote:
Le mardi 12 juin 2012 ?? 10:58 -0400, Jay Sulzberger a ??crit :
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
No because secure boot does not limit your freedom in *any* way. If
you want to hack on the kernel or
On 06/14/2012 01:56 PM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
If Fedora appears to accept that Microsoft should have the
Hardware Root Key, our side's arguments, in several arenas, are
weakened.
Okay, first off, quit hijacking fedora-devel-list for your unrelated DMCA
stuff. It's entirely the wrong place for
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 14:38 -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
P.S. - It looks really strange when you namedrop yourself in your own email.
It's like referring to yourself in the third person, squared.
I think it was a cut/paste on a press release.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/14/2012 01:56 PM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
If Fedora appears to accept that Microsoft should have the
Hardware Root Key, our side's arguments, in several arenas, are
weakened.
Okay, first off, quit hijacking fedora-devel-list for
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:03 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/14/2012 01:56 PM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
If Fedora appears to accept that Microsoft should have the
Hardware Root Key, our side's arguments, in several arenas, are
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com wrote:
stuff removed /
It's completely their decision as to how they
ship this, and nothing we can do will ever change that.
Peter, this is ridiculous. Of course Fedora might be able to get
matters better
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:46 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Please forgive this top posting.
I will not answer now your radical defense of Microsoft, except to
say two things:
1. Your defense would apply also to the decades long fraud of
Microsoft saying in their EULA that, if you do not run
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:46 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Please forgive this top posting.
I will not answer now your radical defense of Microsoft, except to
say two things:
1. Your defense would apply also to the
On 06/14/2012 04:52 PM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
ad inability to manage keeping the private half of the Fedora key
private: This is absurd. I will be happy to explain methods
which, if Red Hat wanted, would meet all statutory, and real
security, and even all anti-FUD compliance, requirements.
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 01:56:01PM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
If Fedora appears to accept that Microsoft should have the
Hardware Root Key, our side's arguments, in several arenas, are
weakened.
I don't think we've argued that they should, merely that they do.
--
Matthew Garrett |
Le jeudi 14 juin 2012 à 16:52 -0400, Jay Sulzberger a écrit :
Therefore everything
is OK, even if in a couple of years, Fedora is completely locked
out of all ARM devices. In particular, because Microsoft and the
hardware vendor say everything is OK, anti-trust law does not
apply.
You may
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:46 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Please forgive this top posting.
I will not answer now your radical defense of Microsoft, except to
say two things:
1. Your defense would apply also to the decades long fraud of
Microsoft saying in their EULA that, if you do not run
On 06/12/2012 07:43 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Jay Sulzberger (j...@panix.com) said:
There is here no irrestible tide. Rather, Fedora is jumping to
surrender before engagement.
Secret discussions with Microsoft is perhaps part of this
engagement. But such discussion is not the whole battle.
On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 10:25 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I am inclined to believe, the spirit behind Linux has changed, changed
away from being idealistic to playing issues low for commerial interests.
I'm not going to agree or disagree, but purely as background, remember
that the spirit
Peter Jones wrote:
I find it pretty hard to believe this position. Through my role working
on our bootloaders at Red Hat, I've seen a fair amount of pre-production
hardware, and I've spent a lot of time looking at hardware that implements
Secure Boot, and how it does so. I've seen the firmware
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 10:25 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I am inclined to believe, the spirit behind Linux has changed, changed
away from being idealistic to playing issues low for commerial interests.
I'm not going to agree or disagree, but purely as background,
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
Linus started only the kernel. The complete operating system was started by
the GNU Project, which is very much idealistic.
And where would GNU be if it weren't for Linux? I remember gcc and
glibc before Linux came along (and then
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 04:19 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 10:25 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I am inclined to believe, the spirit behind Linux has changed, changed
away from being idealistic to playing issues low for commerial interests.
On 06/11/2012 05:55 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Nicu Buculei wrote:
Excuse me, but people like him used to be our (Fedora's) target audience.
Have a read at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_base
For voluntary Linux consumers who are computer-friendly and likely
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Nicu Buculei nicu_fed...@nicubunu.ro wrote:
On 06/11/2012 05:55 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Nicu Buculei wrote:
Excuse me, but people like him used to be our (Fedora's) target
audience.
Have a read at
On 06/12/2012 10:16 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Nicu Buculei wrote:
We do already exclude contributors for such dubious reasons
Well you accuse other of not being able to read a wiki ... so please
read what I wrote.
excluding *users* for such dubious reasons . ...
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Nicu Buculei nicu_fed...@nicubunu.ro wrote:
On 06/12/2012 10:16 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Nicu Buculei wrote:
We do already exclude contributors for such dubious reasons
Well you accuse other of not being able to read a wiki ...
On 06/12/2012 12:58 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Nicu Buculei wrote:
The point is we have a target audience:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_base
Our desired users ARE contributors.
We do have a mission as well: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#Our_Mission
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Nicu Buculei nicu_fed...@nicubunu.ro wrote:
On 06/12/2012 12:58 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Nicu Buculei wrote:
The point is we have a target audience:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_base
Our desired users ARE contributors.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 10:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Chris Smart wrote:
On 09/06/12 19:34, drago01 wrote:
If Fedora does not implement some form of Secure Boot support, 100% of
Fedora users will still be able to
On 06/12/2012 08:10 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 10:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Chris Smart wrote:
On 09/06/12 19:34, drago01 wrote:
If Fedora does not implement some form of Secure Boot
On 06/12/2012 06:15 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Nicu Buculeinicu_fed...@nicubunu.ro wrote:
On 06/12/2012 12:58 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Nicu Buculei wrote:
The point is we have a target audience:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_base
On 06/12/2012 08:10 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Due to my respect to your request, I thought about it for nearly 72
hours. I still stand behind what I said: People who are incapable of
switching a BIOS setting, which might involve doing a simple web
search beforehand, should better not touch any
On 06/12/2012 09:00 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
This is MS classic ploy against free software embrace and extend. First it
will be it can be disabled then for windows 9 if you want to have approved
hardware MS will require, like ARM, x86 secure boot can not be disabled and
they will point to Fedora
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Nicu Buculei nicu_fed...@nicubunu.ro
wrote:
On 06/12/2012 12:58 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Nicu Buculei wrote:
The point is we have a target audience:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/12/2012 08:10 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Due to my respect to your request, I thought about it for nearly 72
hours. I still stand behind what I said: People who are incapable of
switching a BIOS setting, which might involve doing
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com wrote:
This seems like a pretty unlikely scenario. You have to disable secure boot
to perform most kernel-level debugging operations in Windows 8. It'd
alienate
pretty much the entire OEM community for Windows add-on card drivers,
Le mardi 12 juin 2012 à 10:58 -0400, Jay Sulzberger a écrit :
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
No because secure boot does not limit your freedom in *any* way. If
you want to hack on the kernel or other low level stuff flip a switch
in the firmware.
It is
On 06/12/2012 10:58 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, drago01drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Nicu Buculeinicu_fed...@nicubunu.ro wrote:
On 06/12/2012 12:58 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Nicu Buculei wrote:
The point is we
On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 10:17 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Nicu Buculei nicu_fed...@nicubunu.ro wrote:
Of course we are missing that part *now*, there is no motherboard with UEFI
and Secure Boot in the wild so we can take screenshots and publish them.
Once
On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 11:08 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Let Fedora help bring to market better hardware.
Do not agree that Microsoft should have the Hardware Root Key on
just about all x86 style computers for sale next year.
That tide still appears to be coming in despite your commands,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.comwrote:
On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 11:08 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Let Fedora help bring to market better hardware.
Do not agree that Microsoft should have the Hardware Root Key on
just about all x86 style computers for
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 11:08 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Let Fedora help bring to market better hardware.
Do not agree that Microsoft should have the Hardware Root Key on
just about all x86 style computers for sale next
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
You are, and that was being very un-excellent, so please refrain from it
in future.
I'm left wondering where your concern about being excellent to each
other has been hiding throughout this thread, and where it was
On 06/12/2012 01:11 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Let me make this more clear: People in this thread have been saying
that instructions can't be created because the hardware is not
available to the public yet. However, the people working this stuff
actually do have access to UEFI secureboot
Jay Sulzberger (j...@panix.com) said:
There is here no irrestible tide. Rather, Fedora is jumping to
surrender before engagement.
Secret discussions with Microsoft is perhaps part of this
engagement. But such discussion is not the whole battle.
Fedora should call a conference to
101 - 200 of 555 matches
Mail list logo
