*countable infinities only
gmaxwell at gmail.com
Sat Jun 2 15:38:27 UTC 2012
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:32 AM, drago01 <drago01 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Or you don't do the later and just disable secureboot. Your freedom is
> in *no way* limited by having secureboot support.
> Let me repeat it again supporting secureboot on x86 does *NOT* limit
> your freedom.
After all this discussion you'll still make that claim? I feel insulted.
When I create a fork, respin, or remix of Fedora and distribute it to
people it will not run for them like Fedora does without a level of
fiddling which the people advocating this have made clear is entirely
unacceptable. This is because Fedora will be cryptographically
signing the distribution with keys these systems require and not
sharing the keys with me. Fedora be doing this even with software
that I wrote, enhancing it with a signing key only they have access
too, making it much more useful on hardware where it is not otherwise,
and not allowing me and or downstream recipients to enjoy the same
improvements for their modified versions.
What is unclear about this?
Let me offer this in the form of a question: "Why don't Fedora
developers just disable SecureBoot on their own systems and not bother
implementing anything with it in the distribution?"
More information about the devel