On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 14:55 -0400, Steve Clark wrote: > On 06/01/2012 11:54 AM, drago01 wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Cosimo Cecchi wrote: > > > > I don't want to jump in the technicality of this discussion, but I can > > > > only hope any "solution" that requires users to fiddle with BIOS > > > > settings in order to install Fedora won't be seriously considered as > > > > viable. > > > Sorry, but it's the ONLY viable solution. Any "solution" that removes users' > > > freedom (and that's the case of ANY "solution" which leaves "Secure" Boot > > > enabled) cannot be seriously considered as viable. > > Secureboot support does *NOT* limit your freedom as long as it is > > optional (the default setting does not matter). > > > > You are either making more complex for everyone or for those that want > > do develop kernel development, run out of tree drivers etc. > > > > In case enabled secureboot is the only option (i.e we somehow refuse > > to boot with it disabled) then (and only then) you can talk about > > removed freedom otherwise this is just FUD. > What about on ARM? as mjg59 pointed out in his initial post, the ARM ecosystem is far less Microsoft-centric. Microsoft's logo requirements are stricter for ARM systems, which means it'd probably be a very bad idea to buy a Windows 8 ARM device as something to put Fedora on...but on the positive side, it's highly likely there will be lots of ARM hardware around which is not Microsoft-certified, unlike PCs. -- 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
