(I'm posting in this thread rather than starting a new one in order to
respect people who've spam-canned it)
It is being widely reported that Canonical's be signing the kernel,
they won't be requiring signed drivers, and won't be restricting
runtime functionality while securebooted. What is being
On 06/25/2012 11:25 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
This seems a bit incongruent with many of the claims made here about
the degree of participation with cryptographic lockdown required and
the importance of it.
I think we've made it fairly clear that we don't believe their interpretation
is
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com wrote:
I feel like this is quite patronizing. We've stated time and again that we
don't believe the scenario you're preaching has any real /viability/, and
Sounds like you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with Canonical.
I
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 02:10:10PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I was under the impression that you couldn't get a key like that
signed in the first place. But what do I know, it seems like the
experts at canonical don't agree and are going to try several other
routes concurrently.
We never
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
(I'm posting in this thread rather than starting a new one in order to
respect people who've spam-canned it)
It is being widely reported that Canonical's be signing the kernel,
they won't be requiring signed drivers, and won't be
Jay Sulzberger (j...@panix.com) said:
The issue is so large that it is absurd to allow a small group of
engineers from Fedora to engage in secret negotiations with the
Englobulators about the issue. The small team is not empowered
by me, nor by millions of others, to give away our present
On Jun 25, 2012, at 9:25 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
It is being widely reported that Canonical's be signing the kernel,
they won't be requiring signed drivers, and won't be restricting
runtime functionality while securebooted. What is being claimed is
that the only thing they'll be
On Jun 25, 2012, at 12:22 PM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
The main error of the Surrender before Engagement Argument is:
1. to implicitly assume that the issue is smaller than it is
The situation is quite different:
If we do not here and now stand and fight, likely we will shortly
lose the
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
I'm reading they're going to use a modified Intel efilinux, not writing a new
boot loader. And that they will not require either signed kernel or kernel
modules.
Thats my understanding.
So what's the point of
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 14:10 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com wrote:
I feel like this is quite patronizing. We've stated time and again that we
don't believe the scenario you're preaching has any real /viability/, and
Sounds like
On Jun 25, 2012, at 12:48 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
So what's the point of Secure Pre-Boot?
Making Ubuntu work on the hardware people have. Which is the
justification given here why Fedora needed to adopt crytographic
signing of the kernel/drivers/etc.
That does not answer the
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
That does not answer the question. Ubuntu would work on Secure Boot hardware
if they recommended users disable Secure Boot. So why not recommend that, and
not support Secure Boot at all?
I advocated that. It was
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Jun 25, 2012, at 12:48 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
So what's the point of Secure Pre-Boot?
Making Ubuntu work on the hardware people have. Which is the
justification given here why Fedora needed to adopt
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
I'm reading they're going to use a modified Intel efilinux, not writing a
new boot loader. And that they will not require either signed kernel
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012, Seth Johnson seth.p.john...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
I'm reading they're going to use a modified Intel efilinux, not writing
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 09:14:54PM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
These questions are asked so that I may better lay out some
actual security considerations in a later post.
http://www.uefi.org/specs/download/UEFI_2_3_1_Errata_B.pdf sections
27.6, 27.7 and 27.8, along with 7.2 for an overview
On 06/25/2012 09:14 PM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
[...] I have some questions about what sort of
capabilities the UEFI will have in machines sold later this year:
1. What is the mechanism for remote revocation of signing keys?
There's 2 mechanisms here. The first is a key list called DBX. This is
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 09:14:54PM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
These questions are asked so that I may better lay out some
actual security considerations in a later post.
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012, Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/25/2012 09:14 PM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
[...] I have some questions about what sort of
capabilities the UEFI will have in machines sold later this year:
1. What is the mechanism for remote revocation of signing keys?
There's
On 06/25/2012 11:08 PM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Is there a hardware switch or jumper that can be set so that no
modification of the firmware is possible? My question here is:
if I have gross physical possession of the hardware can I disable
firmware updates done just via code running on the
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012, Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/25/2012 11:08 PM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Is there a hardware switch or jumper that can be set so that no
modification of the firmware is possible? My question here is:
if I have gross physical possession of the hardware can I
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 23:31 -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
I know that UEFI hardware is available.
Which hardware do you recommend, if I want to actually see the
UEFI and perhaps try it out?
I'm really, *really* not in the business of recommending hardware. There
are various sites on the
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:40:14 +0900, you wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:56:20 +0100
Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
System76 (and possibly others) will be supplying systems
that provide (2), so that choice is available to you.
Matthew, I often read you referring to System76, since
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:57:58 -0400
Gerald Henriksen ghenr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:40:14 +0900, you wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:56:20 +0100
Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
System76 (and possibly others) will be supplying systems
that provide (2), so
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:04 AM, nomnex nom...@gmail.com wrote:
Things have changed. That's a good news (for once). Thanks for the
update.
Bravo, so apparently there is a leader on this, a free software UEFI
on its own trustworthy hardware, that hopefully will tell the truth to
the user about
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 01:19:22PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:04 AM, nomnex nom...@gmail.com wrote:
Things have changed. That's a good news (for once). Thanks for the
update.
Bravo, so apparently there is a leader on this, a free software UEFI
on its own
Proceed to the next paragraph then. ;-)
Seth
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 01:19:22PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:04 AM, nomnex nom...@gmail.com wrote:
Things have changed. That's a good news
On 06/18/2012 06:18 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
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 premise. That premise is to assume that there is a
God-given right for people who own computing devices
On 06/18/2012 05:03 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 06/18/2012 01:21 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
i buy a computer
i do not rent it
i pay money, i own teh device after giving my money
You have to realize that the ease of installing alternative software is
a historical accident resulting from
Andrew Haley wrote:
The problem with this claim is that it equivocates on the meaning of
a right. There are at least two definitions of a right in this
sense: moral rights and legal rights. These are not the same. Moral
rights are not in the gift of any Government. While we may not have a
On 06/19/2012 03:45 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
I would claim that the moral right to run whatever software we wish on
hardware we own is a negative right; it doesn't put any obligation on
another party to help you do it. If you can hack up Fedora to run on a
Nokia Windows phone, more power to
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 09:40 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 06/18/2012 06:18 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
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 premise. That premise is to assume that
I wrote:
I would claim that the moral right to run whatever software we wish on
hardware we own is a negative right; it doesn't put any obligation on
another party to help you do it. If you can hack up Fedora to run on a
Nokia Windows phone, more power to you, but Nokia and Microsoft aren't
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 09:40 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 06/18/2012 06:18 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
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
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Eric Smith e...@brouhaha.com wrote:
If the things that make it difficult to run software of your choosing on a
device can be proven to serve no purpose but to stifle competition, then
yes. But often those things have other purposes as well. For example,
On 06/19/2012 04:50 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
I wrote:
I would claim that the moral right to run whatever software we wish on
hardware we own is a negative right; it doesn't put any obligation on
another party to help you do it. If you can hack up Fedora to run on a
Nokia Windows phone, more
On Jun 19, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
In the United States and Europe there is a large body of statute
law, regulatory rulings, and court decisions which say that yes,
a large powerful company cannot take certain actions to impede
competitors.
Cite the law and case law that
On Jun 19, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
And, as if on cue, Microsoft just announced their own ARM tablet. Do you feel
that they should leave it open to installing alternative OS?
Apple does not. Although I don't think they're using UEFI on their hardware,
the described boot
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Jun 19, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
In the United States and Europe there is a large body of statute
law, regulatory rulings, and court decisions which say that yes,
a large powerful company cannot take
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 12:03 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Adam, just a short bald claim:
In the United States and Europe there is a large body of statute
law, regulatory rulings, and court decisions which say that yes,
a large powerful company cannot take certain actions to impede
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 12:10 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Eric Smith e...@brouhaha.com wrote:
If the things that make it difficult to run software of your choosing on a
device can be proven to serve no purpose but to stifle competition, then
yes. But often
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:15:34 -0700, you wrote:
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 12:03 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Adam, just a short bald claim:
In the United States and Europe there is a large body of statute
law, regulatory rulings, and court decisions which say that yes,
a large powerful company
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen ghenr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:15:34 -0700, you wrote:
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 12:03 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Adam, just a short bald claim:
In the United States and Europe there is a large body of statute
law, regulatory
Oi, please forgive me Gerald Henriksen!
I called you Henrik, and this is not your name.
Oi.
oo--JS.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 17:49 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Henrik, I will respond to your claims, if you will answer me one
question first:
As you know, for over a decade Microsoft included in every EULA
for its home computer OSes, a Refund Clause. The clause
stated that if the buyer
Moral rights are from the Civil Code/French tradition. We don't do
moral rights, although certain interests keep trying. Moral rights in
the copyright context (I am unaware that they exist outside copyright)
are a right of attribution and a right of integrity. We don't have
these in the US
The positive/negative right formulation is a post-New Deal notion,
rooted in the question of whether it has been textually granted --
very different from the notion that we hold rights prior to
government. It may be that we can describe all rights regardless of
whether they are the result of
Minor clarifying insert:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Seth Johnson seth.p.john...@gmail.com wrote:
The positive/negative right formulation is a post-New Deal notion,
rooted in the question of whether it has been textually granted --
very different from the notion that we hold rights prior
Seth Johnson wrote:
The positive/negative right formulation is a post-New Deal notion,
rooted in the question of whether it has been textually granted --
very different from the notion that we hold rights prior to
government.
Nevertheless, even prior to that formulation rights like freedom of
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 17:49 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Henrik, I will respond to your claims, if you will answer me one
question first:
As you know, for over a decade Microsoft included in every EULA
for its home
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:56:20 +0100
Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
System76 (and possibly others) will be supplying systems
that provide (2), so that choice is available to you.
Matthew, I often read you referring to System76, since the UEFI
discussion. System76 products are
Le dimanche 17 juin 2012 à 21:54 -0600, Kevin Fenzi a écrit :
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
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 01:09:52 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
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
Le lundi 18 juin 2012 à 06:09 -0400, Gerald Henriksen a écrit :
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 01:09:52 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
No. Let Red Hat tell the truth. Let Red Hat design a better
UEFI motherboard.
So now the target has moved from Red Hat buying some hardware with
secure boot disabled to
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:47:34AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Seth Johnson seth.p.john...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you're suggesting here. It's
not possible to simply replace a system's firmware with another
On 06/18/2012 12:53 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
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
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:47:34AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Seth Johnson seth.p.john...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you're suggesting here. It's
not
On 06/18/2012 01:17 AM, 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 install Fedora without a
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 08:45:07AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
The features you wanted in a free software UEFI are present in existing
UEFI implementations, so I'm not sure what you're asking for.
No need for a
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 08:54:08AM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
There's every indication that were we to so choose, Microsoft would happily
sign our binaries and allow us to boot on Secure Boot constrained ARM
machines at no additional cost. We believe that without the guarantee that
you can
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/18/2012 01:17 AM, 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:
Bob Young, a master of
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:20:05AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
It's apparently difficult to recognize Jay's argument, immediately
above. Jay did not say you currently cannot get an ARM key. I did
not present an argument in my comment.
What if, as has already happened with ARM, Microsoft
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 08:45:07AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
The features you wanted in a free software UEFI are present in existing
UEFI
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:20:05AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
It's apparently difficult to recognize Jay's argument, immediately
above. Jay did not say you currently cannot get an ARM key. I did
not present an
On 06/18/2012 09:26 AM, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 08:45:07AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
The features you wanted in a free
Am 18.06.2012 15:30, schrieb Seth Johnson:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:20:05AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
It's apparently difficult to recognize Jay's argument, immediately
above. Jay did not say you currently cannot
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:43:27AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
Like I said before, the existing UEFI implementations on the existing
hardware will support Disable Secure Boot or use your own chain of
trust. If you're
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:43:27AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
Like I said before, the existing UEFI implementations on the existing
hardware
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:04:38AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
Ok so what you mean is I want a UEFI implementation that doesn't
require a Microsoft signature to boot? The options there are currently
(1) have a Fedora
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:04:38AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
Ok so what you mean is I want a UEFI implementation that doesn't
require a
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:14:04AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
So you want Fedora to boot on all hardware sold?
I want Red Hat, Fedora, and the free software community to come to
terms with what they must do in the
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:14:04AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org
wrote:
So you want Fedora to boot on all hardware sold?
I want Red Hat, Fedora,
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:35:40 +0200
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 18.06.2012 15:30, schrieb Seth Johnson:
I stand corrected. Jay's point is that Microsoft will be in a
position to change policy, on either platform. That could happen
once it is in a position to do so.
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, 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 already
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:35:40 +0200
We really can't know whats going to happen down the road, we can only
act on it as we know it.
LOL -- by all the signs we have available to know it.
Seth
--
devel mailing list
On 06/18/2012 11:03 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Microsoft has not refused to grant Fedora a key for ARM.
This I do not understand. By reports in the admittedly
incompetent magazines dealing with home computers, Microsoft's
policy is to keep Fedora, and any other OSes, except for
Microsoft
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:03:23AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
This I do not understand. By reports in the admittedly
incompetent magazines dealing with home computers, Microsoft's
policy is to keep Fedora, and any other OSes, except for
Microsoft OSes, off all Microsoft Certified ARM
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
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
On 06/18/2012 11:14 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
System76 have committed to providing hardware without pre-enabled secure boot.
Matthew, I am delighted to hear this.
Note that this contradicts the claim, made more than once in
this thread, that such an arrangement is, in practice, impossible.
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen ghenr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 01:09:52 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
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
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:14:04AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
So you want Fedora to boot on all hardware sold?
I want Red Hat, Fedora, and the
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/18/2012 11:03 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Microsoft has not refused to grant Fedora a key for ARM.
This I do not understand. By reports in the admittedly
incompetent magazines dealing with home computers, Microsoft's
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:03:23AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
This I do not understand. By reports in the admittedly
incompetent magazines dealing with home computers, Microsoft's
policy is to keep Fedora, and any other
On 06/18/2012 11:54 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
If I understand correctly, Fedora has now formally allowed
Microsoft to lock Fedora out of many coming ARM devices.
Well, no. At this point it's still just a proposal.
--
Peter
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:40:01AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
But here are two headers of my argument: If we do not defend the
ground on which free software lives and grows, we will shortly
have no free software. Part of the ground is that we need ask no
permission of Microsoft, nor
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 11:54 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Just one word before I break off, if I can ;), engagement for today:
If I understand correctly, Fedora has now formally allowed
Microsoft to lock Fedora out of many coming ARM devices.
The use of the term 'allowed' implies that we
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:14:11 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
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.
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 09:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
A couple of concerned Red Hat / Fedora developers - Peter and Matthew -
have stated that they are unhappy that the certification requirements
for Windows ARM client devices don't state that the user should be able
to disable Secure
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:54:20 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:03:23AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
This I do not understand. By reports in the admittedly
incompetent magazines dealing with home
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:23:53 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen ghenr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 01:09:52 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:21:14PM -0400, Jay
On 06/18/2012 10:18 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Sorry for the self-reply, but just in case it's not brutally clear yet,
I wanted to explicitly state this:
[snip]
Bravo!
--
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / b...@redhat.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:18:35 -0700, you wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 09:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Much good stuff deleted.
Fedora can deplore the situation; Fedora can state its support for
computing devices which allow the user the freedom to install
alternative operating system
On Jun 18, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Seth Johnson wrote:
I will say: A political campaign
that rebukes Microsoft.
For what? Come up with three example picket sign messages for your campaign,
and *briefly* elaborate on each one using less than 60 words each.
A stand that does not accommodate
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 09:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
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
premise. That
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 14:42 -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
In this connection, the claim is that if we actually purchase
something (and do not contract the transaction otherwise), then as our
property we can do with it as we see fit. The notion that there's
another kind of transaction where
On Jun 18, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
2) Government. If a large enough set of national governments required
that secure boot be disabled by default then we could assume that
arbitrary hardware would work out of the box. It's unclear to me which
laws you think the vendors
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 for
people who own computing devices to
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Jun 18, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
2) Government. If a large enough set of national governments required
that secure boot be disabled by default then we could assume that
arbitrary hardware would
On Jun 18, 2012, at 11:21 AM, 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
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 14:27 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jun 18, 2012, at 11:21 AM, 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
1 - 100 of 555 matches
Mail list logo
