[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [OT] Re: the ghost of UEFI and Micr0$0ft

Hello Camaleón,

Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:
> IMO, Fedora did *the wrong thing*

Why? They get their release to boot on most/all computers. That’s a
good thing, isn’t it?

> (since when blindly following what 
> Microsoft -or any other company- does is the correct way to achieve a 
> milestone?)

Given the aforementioned blog post, I doubt that this happened ‘blindly’.

> in *the wrong way* (by not counting with the whole open 
> source community support, or at least the other linux distributions, 
> before taking such a decision).

The alternative to getting MS to sign their boot loader would have
been to set up another agency that signs boot loaders and get the key
of said agency included with hardware. Said blog post explains why
this was not exactly the best thing to do right now.
> Of course, they're not committed to give explanations on what they do nor 
> how they do, but neither makes a favor to the FLOSS community :-/

Read the blog post.

Best regards,

A diplomat is a man who can convince his wife she'd look stout in a fur coat.
http://chubig.net                          telnet nightfall.org 4242

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: