Re: [OT] Re: the ghost of UEFI and Micr0$0ft
On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 18:31:01 +0200, Claudius Hubig wrote:
> Hello Camaleón,
> Camaleón <email@example.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?
No when there's a price to pay for that.
For years, we've (the FLOSS community) been avoinding to be always
Windows dependant and now it seems we are going back to the darkest ages.
Repeat with me: we-don't-need-Windows-anymore.
If you (or me or whoever) do want it, deal with it and the way their
stuff works. I'm a bit tired of being so condescending with Microsoft or
Apple or Oracle... or other companies policies. How about our needings?
>> (since when blindly following what
>> Microsoft -or any other company- does is the correct way to achieve a
> Given the aforementioned blog post, I doubt that this happened
"Blindly" here means there's no technical reason that supports the path
they want to take for UEFI, but a marketing strategy.
>> 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.
Whatever decision is taken, it should be done by consensus or we'll all
>> 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.
I did and I didn't like what it says. There's always another way. Period.