*countable infinities only

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Fri Jun 1 17:27:37 UTC 2012


On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 19:03 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 06:32:25PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Peter Jones wrote:
> > > I can see the loss of freedom, and I find it unfortunate, but despite
> > > what you've said above, you *are* distorting it. There's nothing you
> > > won't be able to do that you could do before. Doing it the same way
> > > will be harder than it was.
> > 
> > Then why are we not just requiring those steps from everyone?
> > 
> > Steps:
> > 1. Disable "Secure Boot" (link to FSF explanation on what it really is)
> > 2. Install Fedora
> 
>   Because the entire excercise is to allow Fedora install without tinkering
> with firmware settings. It had to "just work", even for people who never
> ever pressed F2/Del during POST in their entire life.

KK's position is that this is not true. He is arguing that it's better
to require people to disable Secure Boot and use this as an opportunity
to explain the problems with it, than to come up with a compromise that
allows us to install in Secure Boot-enabled mode but:

a) compromises software freedom to some extent
b) compromises some functionality, possibly without the user being aware
of the fact
c) implicitly gives the whole secure boot setup our endorsement

It's at least a defensible position. Nothing is to be gained by people
simply throwing assertions at each other. 'I assert that we can't
possibly compromise'! 'No, I assert that we can't possibly fail to work
OOTB!' is not a rational argument, it's simply two people yelling.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net



More information about the devel mailing list