On Mon, 25 Jun 2012, Peter Jones wrote:
On 06/25/2012 11:08 PM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Is there a hardware switch or jumper that can be set so that no
modification of the firmware is possible? My question here is:
if I have gross physical possession of the hardware can I disable
firmware
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012, Peter Jones wrote:
On 06/25/2012 09:14 PM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
[...] I have some questions about what sort of
capabilities the UEFI will have in machines sold later this year:
1. What is the mechanism for remote revocation of signing keys?
There's 2 mechanisms
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 09:14:54PM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> These questions are asked so that I may better lay out some
> actual security considerations in a later post.
http://www.uefi.org/specs/download/UEFI_2_3_1_Errata_B.pdf
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> I'm reading they're going to use a modified Intel efilinux, not writing a
new boot loader. And that they will not require either sign
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
On Jun 25, 2012, at 12:48 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
>
>> So what's the point of Secure Pre-Boot?
>
> Making Ubuntu work on the hardware people have. Which is the
> justification given here why Fedora needed to adopt crytographic
> signing of t
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
(I'm posting in this thread rather than starting a new one in order to
respect people who've spam-canned it)
It is being widely reported that Canonical's be signing the kernel,
they won't be requiring signed drivers, and won't be restricting
runtim
My last in this thread should not have been sent by me to the Fedora devel list.
It was in answer to a private off list message.
oo--JS.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 17:49 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Henrik, I will respond to your claims, if you will answer me one
question first:
As you know, for over a decade Microsoft included in every EULA
for its home computer OSes, a "R
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:49:15 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
As you know, for over a decade Microsoft included in every EULA
for its home computer OSes, a "Refund Clause". The clause
stated that if the buyer of the computer never booted the
already
Oi, please forgive me Gerald Henriksen!
I called you "Henrik", and this is not your name.
Oi.
oo--JS.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:15:34 -0700, you wrote:
>On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 12:03 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>
>> Adam, just a short bald claim:
>>
>> In the United States and Europe there is a large body of statute
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> In the United States and Europe there is a large body of statute
> law, regulatory rulings, and court decisions which say that yes,
> a large powerful company cannot take certai
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 09:40 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 06/18/2012 06:18 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I hesitate to put words in people's mouths, and correct me if I'm
> wrong, but it reads to me as if Jay and others are arguing from an
> incorre
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:03:23AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> This I do not understand. By reports in the admittedly
> incompetent magazines dealing with home computers, Microsoft's
> policy is to keep Fedora, and any other
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 06/18/2012 11:03 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>
>>> Microsoft has not refused to grant Fedora a key for ARM.
>>
>> This I do not understand. By reports in the admittedly
>> incompetent magazines dealing with home
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:14:04AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > So you want Fedora to boot on all hardware sold?
>
> I want Red Hat, Fedora, and the free software community to come to
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 01:09:52 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:21:14PM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>>
>> > I think 50 million dollars towa
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:56:54AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>
> We just need hardware we can install Fedora on, as once we did,
> without asking Microsoft for permission.
System76 have committed to providing hardware without
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:09:52AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
The game is now just about over. What if one day, Microsoft
makes it even harder to install Fedora without a Microsoft
controlled key? What if, as has already happened with ARM
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:21:14PM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> I think 50 million dollars toward buying, and properly arranging
> the UEFI, of several lots of x86 computers would indeed solve
> part of the problem you point out.
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 00:09:37 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>
>
>On Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:21:14 -0400 (EDT)
>> Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>>
>>> I think 50 million dol
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:21:14 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald
wrote:
>> > >
>> >
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 22:01:53 -0400, you wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald
wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:21:14 -0400 (EDT)
Jay Sulzberger wrote:
I think 50 million dollars toward buying, and properly arranging
the UEFI, of several lots of x86 computers would indeed solve
part of the problem you point out.
Why not?
Why
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald
wrote:
> >
> >
>
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald
wrote:
> >
> >
> > Am 17.06.2012 01:14, schrieb Chris Murphy
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >
> >
> > Am 17.06.2012 01:14, schrieb Chris Murphy:
> >> Please provide an example of a better option, with sufficient detail
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jun 16, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Richard Vickery wrote:
Why do we need to bring Microsoft into this, much less listen to, or
communicate with them? Forget about them.
Ahh, the Ostrich Maneuver.
Had this been the policy of others working on this iss
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:46 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> Please forgive this top posting.
>
> I will not answer now your radical defense of Microsoft, except to
> say two things:
>
> 1. Your defense would apply also to t
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:46 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> Please forgive this top posting.
>
> I will not answer now your radical defense of Microsoft, except to
> say two things:
>
> 1. Your defense would apply also to t
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Please forgive this top posting.
I will not answer now your radical defense of Microsoft, except to
say two things:
1. Your defense would apply also to the decades long fraud of
Microsoft saying in their EULA that, if you do not run the
Microsoft
clear presentation!
oo--JS.
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:03 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 06/14/2012 01:56 PM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>
>> If Fedora appears to accept that Microsoft should have the
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Peter Jones wrote:
< stuff removed />
> It's completely their decision as to how they
> ship this, and nothing we can do will ever change that.
Peter, this is ridiculous. Of course Fedora might be able to get
matters better arranged.
Of co
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Peter Jones wrote:
On 06/14/2012 01:56 PM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
If Fedora appears to accept that Microsoft should have the
Hardware Root Key, our side's arguments, in several arenas, are
weakened.
Okay, first off, quit hijacking fedora-devel-list for your unre
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Michael Scherer wrote:
> Le mardi 12 juin 2012 ?? 10:58 -0400, Jay Sulzberger a ??crit :
>
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, drago01 wrote:
>
> >
> > No because secure boot does not limit your freedom in *any* way. If
> > you want to hack on the k
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 06/12/2012 04:16 PM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
I cannot guarantee that any particular negotiation with Lenovo,
nor with Dell, will succeed. But certainly negotiating only with
ourselves, without even trying to negotiate with Lenovo/Dell,
will result
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Jay Sulzberger (j...@panix.com) said:
> There is here no irrestible tide. Rather, Fedora is jumping to
> surrender before engagement.
>
> Secret discussions with Microsoft is perhaps part of this
> engagement. But such dis
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 11:08 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> Let Fedora help bring to market better hardware.
>
> Do not agree that Microsoft should have the Hardware Root Key on
> just about all x86 style computers for sale next y
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Peter Jones wrote:
On 06/12/2012 08:10 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Due to my respect to your request, I thought about it for nearly 72
hours. I still stand behind what I said: People who are incapable of
switching a BIOS setting, which might involve doing a simple web
sear
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, drago01 wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Nicu Buculei
wrote:
> On 06/12/2012 12:58 PM, drago01 wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Nicu Buculei wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The point is we have a target audience:
>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_base
>>>
40 matches
Mail list logo
