Anyway, we are free to choose what fit our requirements.
True.
Is there any formal academic research on the topic of distro
stability/quality/security, with any listed attributes/requirements?
On one hand, corporate control tends to spyware backdoors. On the other,
volunteer control could
If this sort of behaviour from Ubuntu continues, what I would suggest
is that simply people start recommending other Linux distributions.
Personally
I'm a big Fedora fan: It has the same level of ease of use and
features as
Ubuntu and also a nice aesthetic and full SELinux security features
FYI, Mozilla clarifies policy on B2G RIL blobs.
[The platform might become a handset option, someday, in some countries,
starting with Latin America, AFAIK. Today you can dual-boot it on a few
Android v4 phones.]
https://wiki.mozilla.org/B2G/RIL
On 8/8/12 1:47 PM, Yosem Companys wrote: I suggested that Douglas look
for a widely-read and established
Liberationtech-type wiki to host this information. Douglas is doing this
to help out the community, and it would be nice to have a widely-read
place
to post the info, so it would have
The UEFI specification itself does not require that there be any
mechanism to disable this functionality.
But I believe the NIST mandate for BIOS-secured systems does have this
requirement.
An alterantive to UEFI is Linux-based CoreBoot. It's free, whereas all
UEFI implementations are
