>On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:00:33AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote: >>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:54:56AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote: >>>> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Jay Sulzberger <jays@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen <ghenriks@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Not to mention that you are effectively telling anyone not currently >>>> >>>> using "Red Hat Hardware" that they can't run Linux, thus eliminating >>>> >>>> the ability to gain new Linux users. >>> >>>> >>> You have committed a sign error in your argument. >>> >>>> >>> Because there are 200 different products being released, >>>> >>> certainly Red Hat can get another motherboard made. It would >>>> >>> just be the 201st such motherboard. >>> >>>> >>> Further, this is in answer to just another aspect of the same >>>> >>> sign error: We do not have to solve any such problem as you pose. >>>> >>> One superior motherboard would be of great help to Fedora, Red >>>> >>> Hat, and the free sofwtare movement. It is hard today I think to >>>> >>> get Fedora running on some PowerPC systems, on some MIPS systems >>>> >>> too, and likely very hard on old VAX machines. So what? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> We do not have to have every motherboard work well with free >>>> >>> software. But we do need at least one, and we hope many. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> There certainly needs to be one to lead, but also more to follow so >>>> >> that that one does not become a target. >>>> >> >>>> >> But the best thing is that a free software UEFI would let anybody put >>>> >> their own key as hardware root, and this would stymie the >>>> >> rationalizing of big shots holding root and granting signing services >>>> >> to their hardware. >>>> > >>>> > All UEFI implementations we're aware of will be shipping with support >>>> > for replacing all the secure boot keys, including Pk. UEFI itself is >>>> > also entirely free software, although specific implementations may not >>>> > be. >>>> >>>> >>>> Then write a better UEFI. No need for a shim. >>> >>> The machine will have a functional UEFI implementation. Why would we >>> want to replace it? >> >> >> Um, because you're not asking permission? > > I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you're suggesting here. It's > not possible to simply replace a system's firmware with another > implementation. You could chainboot from one UEFI implementation into > another, but if the first implements secure boot then you'd have the > same set of bootstrapping problems as you would with just booting an OS. See the fuller thread, reconstructed in nested fashion above. A free software UEFI would be on its own hardware. Seth >>>> >> >>>> >> Folks might have to pay extra for this at first, but it would soon be >>> >> apparent that this is the way it's supposed to be. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Seth -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
