Re: *countable infinities only

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

 



On 05/31/2012 05:47 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 16:31 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
>> On 05/31/2012 04:26 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Gerry Reno <greno@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> And I'd rather see a User-Controlled implementation rather than a Monopoly-Controlled implementation.
>>> SecureBoot is (currently, on x86 but not arm) _also_ user-controlled.
>>> The monopoly controlled is just the default.
>> I guess what I am saying is a User-only controlled implementation.  No monopoly implementation needed.
> SecureBoot itself is exactly this. It specifies a framework. It just
> says, basically, 'hey, if we sign all these bits then we have a trusted
> boot path'. It doesn't state who should sign the bits. It doesn't care.
>
> It's Microsoft's Windows 8 Client labelling program that implements the
> 'monopoly control'. That's the program which requires compliant hardware
> to trust the Microsoft signing key.
>
> If you want to Opt Out Of The Monopoly, Man all you have to do is buy
> hardware which doesn't comply with Microsoft's program and trust
> Microsoft's key. Such hardware will exist.

99.,9% of x86 hardware is probably going to comply with this monopoly label program.

Which means very limited hardware choices for those who want to opt-out.

.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux