Am 17.06.2012 19:16, schrieb Chris Murphy: > > On Jun 16, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > >> Am 17.06.2012 01:14, schrieb Chris Murphy: >>> Please provide an example of a better option, with sufficient detail as to constitute a successful relay of the baton. >>> The point of the thread from the outset was to explore alternatives, but so far those alternatives are vaporware. >> >> why do people not realize that with using microsoft keys >> we are bringing them in the future to say "hey, look there >> is no reason to disable secure-boot, so now we make it >> mandatory without any option to disable it" >> >> you do not believe this would happen? > > What I believe is irrelevant. You're proposing emotional reaction based > on a future hardware requirement that has not been proposed, > is not in the interest of Microsoft or their OEMs post-Windows > 8 requirement efforts requiring the disable feature, all for the singular > purpose of destroying a 1% market. And I think your proposal is highly > irrational and without merit irrational? you are aware that on ARM platform is NO DISABLE SECURE BOOT allowed this is not "future requirement" this is CURRENT requirement for Win8 on ARM
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
