On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:00:56 -0400
Tom Metro wrote:
> I haven't seen any recent articles that have made this claim. What I
The Linux Foundation article that sparked this thread repeatedly made
precisely this claim.
> have seen expressed is a concern that non-technical users
Rich Pieri wrote:
> Jerry Feldman wrote:
>> The bottom line here is that UEFI will prevent some Linux users from
>> installing Linux, especially in the near future.
>
> No, it will not. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or has
> bought into the anti-Microsoft propaganda. There is no
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 10:17:21 -0400
Jerry Feldman wrote:
> The bottom line here is that UEFI will prevent some Linux users from
> installing Linux, especially in the near future. I suspect that all
No, it will not. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or has
bought into the anti-Microso
The bottom line here is that UEFI will prevent some Linux users from
installing Linux, especially in the near future. I suspect that all
major distros will be able to install on a UEFI system with very little
user interaction. However, we also need to gain some knowledge so that
when we do encounte
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Rich Pieri wrote:
> This is a lie.
Harsh.
Not all errors are lies.
Sometimes people are just wrong without malice.
Writing is an inexact science.
Sometimes editing for style destroys accuracy,
even with formerly technical people doing it.
The statement is closer
> this UEFI specification associates the firmware with a signing key
> that prohibits users from installing a new operating system. The
This is a lie. UEFI Secure Boot prohibits the running of an unsigned
boot loader and it prevents modification to itself. This is all UEFI
Secure Boot does. Once U
-- Forwarded message --
From: Scott Ehrlich
Date: Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 3:04 PM
Subject: Fwd: [linux_forensics] Did you see this ? - Linux Foundation
Announces Secure Boot Solution
To: li...@yahoogroups.com
-- Forwarded message --
From: Harvey Rothenberg
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:36 AM, Daniel Feenberg wrote:
> They are Linux Torvalds employer, and Ted T'so also, so I don't see how
> you could call it a scam.
>
>
Except Ted T'so works for Google.
I'm not saying that the Linux Foundation doesn't do any
eiman >wrote:
>
> > 1. Linux Foundation Memberships (Chris O'Connell)
> > I've been looking at getting a membership at Linux Foundation.org for a
> > while now. The benefits don't seem so great that they justify the
> > membership costs, but mayb
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Steven L. Kleiman wrote:
> 1. Linux Foundation Memberships (Chris O'Connell)
> I've been looking at getting a membership at Linux Foundation.org for a
> while now. The benefits don't seem so great that they justify the
> memb
Steven L. Kleiman wrote:
> Is the membership largely a scam or does the foundation actually
> further the use of Linux?
I went to their Linuxcon conference this summer and learned useful
things, so that's worth something. They seem to put their conference
proceedings online, for free.
I am pret
1. Linux Foundation Memberships (Chris O'Connell)
I've been looking at getting a membership at Linux Foundation.org for a
while now. The benefits don't seem so great that they justify the
membership costs, but maybe I'm missing the overall point? Does anyone in
our organ
Does anyone in
> our organization have a Linux Foundation membership? Any reasons to buy or
> not to? Is the membership largely a scam or does the foundation actually
> further the use of Linux?
They are Linux Torvalds employer, and Ted T'so also, so I don't see how
y
Guys,
I've been looking at getting a membership at Linux Foundation.org for a
while now. The benefits don't seem so great that they justify the
membership costs, but maybe I'm missing the overall point? Does anyone in
our organization have a Linux Foundation membership? Any re
14 matches
Mail list logo
