On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 23:31 -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
> > I know that UEFI hardware is available.
> >
> > Which hardware do you recommend, if I want to actually see the
> > UEFI and perhaps try it out?
>
> I'm really, *really* not in the business of recommending hardware. There
> are various site
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 up
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 updates done just via code running on the x86/U
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 here.
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 sections
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 here. The first is a key list called DBX. This is
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 sections
27.6, 27.7 and 27.8, along with 7.2 for an overview
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, 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 signed kernel or
>> kernel modules.
>
> Thats my
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, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> That does not answer the question. Ubuntu would work on Secure Boot hardware
> if they recommended users disable Secure Boot. So why not recommend that, and
> not support Secure Boot at all?
I advocated that. It was argued here that this wo
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 the kernel/drivers/etc.
That does not answer the
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 14:10 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Peter Jones 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
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 signed kernel or kernel
> modules.
Thats my understanding.
> So what's the point of Secure Pre-Boot?
Making
On Jun 25, 2012, at 12:22 PM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>
> The main error of the Surrender before Engagement Argument is:
>
> 1. to implicitly assume that the "issue" is smaller than it is
>
> The situation is quite different:
>
> If we do not here and now stand and fight, likely we will shortly
On Jun 25, 2012, at 9:25 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> It is being widely reported that Canonical's be signing the kernel,
> they won't be requiring signed drivers, and won't be restricting
> runtime functionality while securebooted. What is being claimed is
> that the only thing they'll be restri
Jay Sulzberger (j...@panix.com) said:
> The issue is so large that it is absurd to allow a small group of
> engineers from Fedora to engage in secret negotiations with the
> Englobulators about the issue. The small team is not empowered
> by me, nor by millions of others, to give away our present
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
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 02:10:10PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> 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.
We ne
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Peter Jones 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 th
On 06/25/2012 11:25 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
This seems a bit incongruent with many of the claims made here about
the degree of participation with cryptographic lockdown required and
the importance of it.
I think we've made it fairly clear that we don't believe their interpretation
is correc
Also— as this apparently hasn't been mentioned here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SecureBoot
and also the actual WIP kernel patches:
http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/tmp/ftsoefi/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
(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
runtime functionality while securebooted. What is being
Proceed to the next paragraph then. ;-)
Seth
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 01:19:22PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:04 AM, nomnex wrote:
>> > Things have changed. That's a good news (for once). Thanks for the
>> > u
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 01:19:22PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:04 AM, nomnex wrote:
> > Things have changed. That's a good news (for once). Thanks for the
> > update.
>
>
> Bravo, so apparently there is a leader on this, a free software UEFI
> on its own trustworthy h
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:04 AM, nomnex wrote:
> Things have changed. That's a good news (for once). Thanks for the
> update.
Bravo, so apparently there is a leader on this, a free software UEFI
on its own trustworthy hardware, that hopefully will tell the truth to
the user about security for t
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:57:58 -0400
> Gerald Henriksen wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:40:14 +0900, you wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:56:20 +0100
> >> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >>
> >> System76 (and possibly others) will be supplying systems
> >> that provide (2), so that choice is ava
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:40:14 +0900, you wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:56:20 +0100
>> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>
>> System76 (and possibly others) will be supplying systems
>> that provide (2), so that choice is available to you.
>
>Matthew, I often read you referring to System76, since the UEF
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:56:20 +0100
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> System76 (and possibly others) will be supplying systems
> that provide (2), so that choice is available to you.
Matthew, I often read you referring to System76, since the UEFI
discussion. System76 products are limited to the US m
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 "Refund C
Seth Johnson wrote:
The positive/negative right formulation is a post-New Deal notion,
rooted in the question of whether it has been textually granted --
very different from the notion that we hold rights prior to
government.
Nevertheless, even prior to that formulation rights like freedom of t
Minor clarifying insert:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Seth Johnson wrote:
> The positive/negative right formulation is a post-New Deal notion,
> rooted in the question of whether it has been textually granted --
> very different from the notion that we hold rights prior to
> government. It m
The positive/negative right formulation is a post-New Deal notion,
rooted in the question of whether it has been textually granted --
very different from the notion that we hold rights prior to
government. It may be that we can describe all rights regardless of
whether they are the result of legis
Moral rights are from the Civil Code/French tradition. We don't do
moral rights, although certain interests keep trying. Moral rights in
the copyright context (I am unaware that they exist outside copyright)
are a right of attribution and a right of integrity. We don't have
these in the US tradi
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 "Refund Clause". The clause
> stated that if the
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
>> law, regulatory rulings, and
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
>> law, regulatory rulings, and court decisions which say that yes,
>> a large powerf
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 12:10 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
> > If the things that make it difficult to run software of your choosing on a
> > device can be proven to serve no purpose but to stifle competition, then
> > yes. But often those thin
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
> law, regulatory rulings, and court decisions which say that yes,
> a large powerful company cannot take certain actions to impede
> comp
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 certain actions to imped
On Jun 19, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
>
> And, as if on cue, Microsoft just announced their own ARM tablet. Do you feel
> that they should leave it open to installing alternative OS?
Apple does not. Although I don't think they're using UEFI on their hardware,
the described boot
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 certain actions to impede
> competitors.
Cite the law and case law that
On 06/19/2012 04:50 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> I wrote:
>
>> I would claim that the moral right to run whatever software we wish on
>> hardware we own is a negative right; it doesn't put any obligation on
>> another party to help you do it. If you can hack up Fedora to run on a
>> Nokia Windows phon
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
> If the things that make it difficult to run software of your choosing on a
> device can be proven to serve no purpose but to stifle competition, then
> yes. But often those things have other purposes as well. For example,
> requiring firmware
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
I wrote:
I would claim that the moral right to run whatever software we wish on
hardware we own is a negative right; it doesn't put any obligation on
another party to help you do it. If you can hack up Fedora to run on a
Nokia Windows phone, more power to you, but Nokia and Microsoft aren't
obl
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
> > incorrect premise. That premise is to assume th
On 06/19/2012 03:45 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> I would claim that the moral right to run whatever software we wish on
> hardware we own is a negative right; it doesn't put any obligation on
> another party to help you do it. If you can hack up Fedora to run on a
> Nokia Windows phone, more power t
Andrew Haley wrote:
The problem with this claim is that it equivocates on the meaning of
"a right". There are at least two definitions of "a right" in this
sense: moral rights and legal rights. These are not the same. Moral
rights are not in the gift of any Government. While we may not have a
On 06/18/2012 05:03 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 06/18/2012 01:21 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
i buy a computer
i do not rent it
i pay money, i own teh device after giving my money
You have to realize that the ease of installing alternative software is
a historical accident resulting from the
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
> incorrect premise. That premise is to assume that there is a
> God-given right for people who own computing devi
On Jun 18, 2012, at 4:08 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> If I don't agree to the license, then I'm not to use the software.
The iOS license says if I don't agree to the license, then I'm not to use the
*hardware*. Haha. The most specious aspect of SLA's, however, is the phrasing
"by using the device
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> What I should have said is that we have no God-given right to demand
> that any computing device offered for sale must be explicitly designed
> to accommodate the retrofitting of other operating systems or software,
> or indeed to demand th
On Jun 18, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Re-reading my paragraph above, I admit I phrased it somewhat badly. A
> convincing case could at least be made, under the first sale doctrine,
> that you have the right to _try_ and retrofit alternative operating
> systems onto any device you
Jay Sulzberger writes:
> If I understand correctly, Fedora has now formally allowed
> Microsoft to lock Fedora out of many coming ARM devices.
As I understand it, you have the freedom to purchase a $99 key from
Microsoft which you can then use to install Fedora on those locked ARM
devices design
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 17:04 -0400, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:21:40 +0200, you wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Am 18.06.2012 19:18, schrieb Adam Williamson:
> >
> >> 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
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:21:40 +0200, you wrote:
>
>
>Am 18.06.2012 19:18, schrieb Adam Williamson:
>
>> 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 incorrect
>> That premise is to assume that there is a God-
On 06/18/2012 01:21 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 18.06.2012 19:18, schrieb Adam Williamson:
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 incorrect
That premise is to assume that there is a God-given right f
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 14:27 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Am 18.06.2012 19:18, schrieb Adam Williamson:
> >
> >> 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
On Jun 18, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 18.06.2012 19:18, schrieb Adam Williamson:
>
>> 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 incorrect
>> That premise is to assume that there
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> 2) Government. If a large enough set of national governments required
>> that secure boot be disabled by default then we could assume that
>> arbitrary hardware would work out of the box.
Am 18.06.2012 19:18, schrieb Adam Williamson:
> 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 incorrect
> That premise is to assume that there is a God-given right for
> people who own computing devices to r
On Jun 18, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 2) Government. If a large enough set of national governments required
> that secure boot be disabled by default then we could assume that
> arbitrary hardware would work out of the box. It's unclear to me which
> laws you think the vendors
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 14:42 -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> In this connection, the claim is that if we actually purchase
> something (and do not contract the transaction otherwise), then as our
> property we can do with it as we see fit. The notion that there's
> another kind of transaction where n
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 09:35 -0700, 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 incorrect
> premise. That premise is to assum
On Jun 18, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Seth Johnson wrote:
> I will say: A political campaign
> that rebukes Microsoft.
For what? Come up with three example picket sign messages for your campaign,
and *briefly* elaborate on each one using less than 60 words each.
> A stand that does not accommodate Micr
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:18:35 -0700, you wrote:
>On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 09:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Much good stuff deleted.
>Fedora can deplore the situation; Fedora can state its support for
>computing devices which allow the user the freedom to install
>alternative operating system soft
On 06/18/2012 10:18 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Sorry for the self-reply, but just in case it's not brutally clear yet,
I wanted to explicitly state this:
[snip]
Bravo!
--
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / b...@redhat.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedorap
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:23:53 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>
>
>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:
>> >
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:54:20 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>
>
>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, Mic
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 09:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> A couple of concerned Red Hat / Fedora developers - Peter and Matthew -
> have stated that they are unhappy that the certification requirements
> for Windows ARM client devices don't state that the user should be able
> to disable Secure
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:14:11 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>
>
>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.
>>
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 11:54 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> Just one word before I break off, if I can ;), engagement for today:
>
> If I understand correctly, Fedora has now formally allowed
> Microsoft to lock Fedora out of many coming ARM devices.
The use of the term 'allowed' implies that we
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 11:14 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>
> 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 permiss
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:40:01AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> But here are two headers of my argument: If we do not defend the
> ground on which free software lives and grows, we will shortly
> have no free software. Part of the ground is that we need ask no
> permission of Microsoft, nor any
On 06/18/2012 11:54 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
If I understand correctly, Fedora has now formally allowed
Microsoft to lock Fedora out of many coming ARM devices.
Well, no. At this point it's still just a proposal.
--
Peter
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://a
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 OSes, except for
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 computers, Microsoft's
>> policy is
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 toward buying, and properly arranging
On 06/18/2012 11:14 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
System76 have committed to providing hardware without pre-enabled secure boot.
Matthew, I am delighted to hear this.
Note that this contradicts the claim, made more than once in
this thread, that such an arrangement is, in practice, impossible.
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 pre-enabled sec
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 OSes, except for
> Microsoft OSes, off all Microsoft Certified ARM de
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 computers, Microsoft's
policy is to keep Fedora, and any other OSes, except for
Microsoft OSes,
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:35:40 +0200
>
> We really can't know whats going to happen down the road, we can only
> act on it as we know it.
LOL -- by all the signs we have available to know it.
Seth
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorapro
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,
Micro
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:35:40 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 18.06.2012 15:30, schrieb Seth Johnson:
> >
> > I stand corrected. Jay's point is that Microsoft will be in a
> > position to change policy, on either platform. That could happen
> > once it is in a position to do so.
>
> EXACTLY thi
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:21 AM, 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 commun
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
> terms with what they must do in the context create
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:04:38AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > Ok so what you mean is "I want a UEFI implementation that doesn't
>> > require a Microsoft signature to boot"? T
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:04:38AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Ok so what you mean is "I want a UEFI implementation that doesn't
> > require a Microsoft signature to boot"? The options there are currently
> > (1) have a Fedora specific k
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:43:27AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > Like I said before, the existing UEFI implementations on the existing
>> > hardware will support "Disable Secure
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:43:27AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Like I said before, the existing UEFI implementations on the existing
> > hardware will support "Disable Secure Boot or use your own chain of
> > trust". If you're asking for
Am 18.06.2012 15:30, schrieb Seth Johnson:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:20:05AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:>
>>> It's apparently difficult to recognize Jay's argument, immediately
>>> above. Jay did not say you currently cannot get an AR
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:26:23AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > You're still not making it clear what you want. Hardware without secure
>> > boot? Hardware with secure boot but
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:26:23AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > You're still not making it clear what you want. Hardware without secure
> > boot? Hardware with secure boot but a different default policy? Hardware
> > with free firmware th
On 06/18/2012 09:26 AM, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 08:45:07AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The features you wanted in a free software UEFI are present in existing
UE
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:20:05AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:>
>> It's apparently difficult to recognize Jay's argument, immediately
>> above. Jay did not say you currently cannot get an ARM key. I did
>> not present an argument in my com
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 08:45:07AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > The features you wanted in a free software UEFI are present in existing
>> > UEFI implementations, so I'm not sur
1 - 100 of 573 matches
Mail list logo
