On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Gerry Reno <greno@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06/08/2012 08:07 AM, Mario Torre wrote: >> On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: >> >>> that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked >>> down platform; the answer to "Fedora on ARM" is "don't buy a Win8 ARM >>> system and expect to run Fedora". >> One should be very, very careful with sentences like this one. >> >> With more and more machines turning to ARM, simply dismiss it as a >> "don't buy a Win8 ARM" *may* possibly work right now, but it will turn >> against us in the future. >> >> You don't need to be an Oracle to see where all of this is going. >> >> Cheers, >> Mario >> > > And I expect this idea of preventing other OS's from being installed on Win8 ARM hardware will not fly in the EU. It's > anti-competitive. Doubt that as they have near zero market power in that segment right now. One of the leaders in that space is selling locked down devices and nobody seems to care. > In fact, the whole concept of preventing dual-booting, Nothing is preventing dual booting. > and requiring x86 hardware to come with Secure Boot enabled by > default probably won't fly either. Adding a security feature does "fly" just fine. > That too is anti-competitive. Not really no. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
