The Fedora people say that they would rather not go back to the times of compatibility lists to find out what hardware worked with the system.
I'd rather go back to compatibility lists and give my gold to whichever hardware manufacturer caters to my needs than give MS the kind of veto power they would have with secure boot as currently defined.
JP
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Tommy Pham <tommyhp2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Javier Perez <pepebuho@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:I thought one of the MAJOR the points of using Linux and Unix is the
> William. The operating word here is Tiviozation.
> You can compile the kernel but you can't run it on the system. That is the
> threat GPL3 is trying to counteract.
> By creating "valid" kernels, by definition "not valid kernels" cannot run.
>
ability of the Sys Admin to custom compile the kernel to lessen the
vulnerability and to enhance performance by reducing the memory foot
print and number of code execution. Furthermore, am I wrong to
misinterpret that Open Source would permit the consumer (ie, us) to
tweak and use as we see fit for our own personal reasons yet non
destructive towards others. If we are barred from that customization,
what's the point of Open Source?
--
users mailing list
users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
--
------------------------------
/\_/\
|O O| pepebuho@xxxxxxxxx
~~~~ Javier Perez
~~~~ While the night runs
~~~~ toward the day...
m m Pepebuho watches
from his high perch.
-- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
