*countable infinities only

drago01 drago01 at gmail.com
Fri Jun 1 17:53:58 UTC 2012

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2012, at 9:54 AM, drago01 wrote:
>> 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.
> It's an assumption there will be an option to disable it. This is up to the firmware implementation, not the spec. Arguably that is a flaw in the ratified spec. But the place for it now is, ironically, in the Windows 8 Logo Program.
> You'd still find hardware that does not participate in that program, which then aren't bound to supply hardware allowing the disabling of Secure Boot. Apple will be one such company that falls under this.

So? How is supporting secure boot making the situation worse for
fedora in thus cases? The hardware vendors will not go "oh god fedora
does not run so we will ship without secureboot" ... that wont happen
(otherwise we wouldn't have this discussion).
You all fail to explain that point (just dodge the question) so I am
not sure this discussion makes any sense ...

More information about the devel mailing list