<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 06/01/2012 11:54 AM, drago01 wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMqY-FfiBbjmGJNBfE0SnMaMzObxpHd-75dWXuATEB7sK_jjxg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Kevin Kofler <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kevin.kofler@chello.at"><kevin.kofler@chello.at></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I don't want to jump in the technicality of this discussion, but I can
only hope any "solution" that requires users to fiddle with BIOS
settings in order to install Fedora won't be seriously considered as
viable.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Sorry, but it's the ONLY viable solution. Any "solution" that removes users'
freedom (and that's the case of ANY "solution" which leaves "Secure" Boot
enabled) cannot be seriously considered as viable.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Secureboot support does *NOT* limit your freedom as long as it is
optional (the default setting does not matter).
You are either making more complex for everyone or for those that want
do develop kernel development, run out of tree drivers etc.
In case enabled secureboot is the only option (i.e we somehow refuse
to boot with it disabled) then (and only then) you can talk about
removed freedom otherwise this is just FUD.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<font face="sans-serif">What about on ARM?</font><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Stephen Clark<br>
<b>NetWolves</b><br>
Director of Technology<br>
Phone: 813-579-3200<br>
Fax: 813-882-0209<br>
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:steve.clark@netwolves.com">steve.clark@netwolves.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.netwolves.com">http://www.netwolves.com</a><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>