Re: *countable infinities only

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:32 AM, drago01 <drago01@xxxxxxxxx> 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?"
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel



[Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Legacy Announce]     [Home]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel List]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

Add to Google Powered by Linux