On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ahh, the Ostrich Maneuver. > > Had this been the policy of others working on this issue, Microsoft would > not have updated their Windows 8 certification to require the user be able > to disable Secure Boot. And then we'd all be in a significantly worse > position. So congratulations on locating a really hideously bad idea, one > that actually supports the original Microsoft position. Or, perhaps, they would have found themselves behind the gun-sights of the DOJ again and dropped the whole thing in order to avoid years of costly antitrust litigation. (Or do you think they would have backed off at all, just because someone asked, if they didn't think that risk was at least somewhat credible?) Hypotheticals are like that. Who knows? Certainly people who are of the opinion that Fedora shouldn't run on devices that need signed kernels aren't going to be convinced that gaining the ability to make that choice was a big improvement. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
