*countable infinities only

Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell at gmail.com
Mon Jun 25 18:10:10 UTC 2012

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Peter Jones <pjones at redhat.com> wrote:
> I feel like this is quite patronizing.  We've stated time and again that we
> don't believe the scenario you're preaching has any real /viability/, and

Sounds like you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with Canonical.

I didn't propose this, the only stuff I proposed fit within the
invariants you set out: That the rules of the game required you to
restrict the system thusly if Fedora was to boot at all.

I was under the impression that you couldn't get a key like that
signed in the first place. But what do I know, it seems like the
experts at canonical don't agree and are going to try several other
routes concurrently.

Canonical seems to be giving this a higher level of organizational
attention[1], vs pure decision making by the engineering guys deep in
the trenches. Obviously this has system implications far beyond a bit
of bootloader code.  And as a result it appears that they have a plan
which will make a better stand for software freedom while
simultaneously satisfying the PR interest of "not capitulating to
Microsoft", for whatever value that has.

> so we've chosen not to propose it.  There's no secret here - it's possible
> to do, but we don't think it'd last very long before our keys are

I'm looking for a message where anyone said "we could do this, but we
expect our keys would eventually be blacklisted" can you help me out?

I think I'd have said "well, you should do that then, put the ball in
Microsoft's court" ::shrugs::

[1] http://blog.canonical.com/2012/06/22/an-update-on-ubuntu-and-secure-boot/

More information about the devel mailing list