On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 22:01:53 -0400, you wrote: >On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. >>> >>> >>> Numerous non-vaporware recommendations follow, snipped directly from the thread: >> >> (snip) >> >> These suggestions boil down to: >> >> 1) Do nothing >> 2) Become a hardware vendor >> 3) Use a Fedora key >> >> None of these solve the problem of getting Fedora onto arbitrary x86 >> hardware bought towards the end of this year. > > >Which one is the "do nothing" alternative? Most of them. As much as the proposed solution may suck to some, none of the suggestions made in this thread are serious. Vague ideas about protests will do nothing because the public doesn't care (and this has nothing do with this specifically, protests in general accomplish nothing most of the time). Ideas of legal action are doomed because it will take far too long and too much money, and likely fail anyway. The idea the DOJ may take an interest is a joke given the current political climate. Come some point this fall all new hardware will come with secure boot enabled, because none of the vendors can afford to not have the Windows 8 certification on their products. There is nothing Red Hat, Fedora, or anyone else in the Linux community can do to prevent this. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
