*countable infinities only
awilliam at redhat.com
Fri Jun 1 19:00:21 UTC 2012
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 14:55 -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 11:54 AM, drago01 wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler at chello.at> wrote:
> > > Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > 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.
> > 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.
> What about on ARM?
as mjg59 pointed out in his initial post, the ARM ecosystem is far less
Microsoft-centric. Microsoft's logo requirements are stricter for ARM
systems, which means it'd probably be a very bad idea to buy a Windows 8
ARM device as something to put Fedora on...but on the positive side,
it's highly likely there will be lots of ARM hardware around which is
not Microsoft-certified, unlike PCs.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
More information about the devel