*countable infinities only
oget.fedora at gmail.com
Sat Jun 2 18:29:44 UTC 2012
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 2:26 PM, drago01 wrote:
> Simply refusing to run because secureboot is enabled (unless there are
> technical reasons) is simply "limiting the users freedom in the name
> of freedom" which is unacceptable.
I am making a clear distinction between "simply refusing to run" and
"simply refusing to provide support", which you conveniently ignore.
>> This, I think, is equivalent to the fact that a
>> provenpackager is not responsible for all the packages in the
>> distribution, although he has the necessary permissions for
> That's nonsense.
It's perfect analogy to me.
More information about the devel