On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 14:18 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: > On 06/01/2012 12:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 12:10 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: > > > >> We include wireless device firmware even though it isn't free. And we > >> don't like doing that, but it is the only way to get wireless support > >> out of the box in Fedora. > > > > Tiny nit: no, it isn't. We could always write free firmware. This isn't > > impossible, as openfwwf shows. > > In as much as we could always write a new UEFI Firmware implementation, > this is valid. Again not a good analogy, though. We can deploy our alternative firmware to hardware without the user doing anything special at all: the OS indeed _has_ to deploy the firmware to the hardware, at each boot, before it will work. We can't silently and transparently deploy our own UEFI firmware implementation on your system in order to allow you to install Fedora. I realize my different points in this thread tend to point in different directions, but my overarching point is that the 'comparison' between wireless firmware and Secure Boot is a baffling and tenuous one. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
