On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 16:57:20 +0200 Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Peter Jones wrote: > > But I also think it's important for our distro to work out of the > > box on new computers without having to do that. If we don't have > > that, people will simply walk away. > > And I don't think having to disable "Secure" Boot in the firmware is > a hurdle which will make our users "simply walk away". I didn't > "simply walk away" either back in the day where RHL wouldn't boot > without disabling the "Plug and Play operating system" option in the > BIOS. I found it perfectly normal that the firmware settings need to > be adjusted based on the operating system(s) one wants to use. > (Window$ worked just fine with the changed option, just as it > reportedly will with "Secure" Boot disabled, see Matthew Garrett's > posts about that subject.) You're not a typical case as others have noted... and there's another issue: What happens if you try and boot an unsigned image? I assume the error you get is up to the BIOS folks? So, it could be misleading, confusing, depressing or all three. It may be that people will see just "Failed to secure boot" and think there's something wrong with Fedora. They may not even be looking for a bios option. They may burn or download multiple media in an attempt to get it working. All kinds of possible issues... ;( kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
