On 06/08/2012 06:37 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 18:14 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 06/08/2012 05:42 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
>>> And - though it pains me that this next thought might actually be
>>> unpopular, though closer investigation might reveal that I'm giving the
>>> f
On 08/06/12 15:00, drago01 wrote:
Doubt that as they have near zero market power in that segment right
now. One of the leaders in that space is selling locked down devices
and nobody seems to care.
Just for the record, according to the European law, it is illegal to
create hindrance for free t
On Saturday, 9 בJune 2012 00:47:30 Richard Vickery wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Oron Peled wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 8 בJune 2012 20:07:20 Gerry Reno wrote:
> > > On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > That is only assuming that Windows on ARM is successful, of which so
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Richard Vickery
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Oron Peled wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, 8 בJune 2012 20:07:20 Gerry Reno wrote:
>> > On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > > That is only assuming that Windows on ARM is successful, of which so
>> >
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 14:07 +0200, Mario Torre wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
>>>
that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Oron Peled wrote:
> On Friday, 8 בJune 2012 20:07:20 Gerry Reno wrote:
> > On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > That is only assuming that Windows on ARM is successful, of which so
> far
> > > there's been precious little indication.
> >
> > There i
On Friday, 8 בJune 2012 20:07:20 Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > That is only assuming that Windows on ARM is successful, of which so far
> > there's been precious little indication.
>
> There is a tidal wave of these PC ARM devices coming:
>
> http://www.it
On Jun 8, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>
> No. It's entirely anti-competitive:
> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/blog/2012/jan/12/microsoft-confirms-UEFI-fears-locks-down-ARM/
>
>
> http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/
You're confusing restriction of user choice
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 18:14 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 06/08/2012 05:42 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > And - though it pains me that this next thought might actually be
> > unpopular, though closer investigation might reveal that I'm giving the
> > feature too much credit, and without considering
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 13:07 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 14:07 +0200, Mario Torre wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> >>
> >>> that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locke
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 01:07:20PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > there's been precious little indication.
>
> There is a tidal wave of these PC ARM devices coming:
>
> http://www.itworld.com/hardware/240039/qualcomm-targets-pcs-takes-aim-intels-ultr
On 06/08/2012 05:42 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 16:29 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 06/08/2012 04:24 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
>>> And? I wasn't speaking to "we should sign our arm images with
>>> Microsoft's key", I was speaking to "we should support Secure Boot on
>>> arm".
On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 14:07 +0200, Mario Torre wrote:
>> On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
>>
>>> that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked
>>> down platform; the answer to "Fedora on ARM" is "don't bu
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 14:07 +0200, Mario Torre wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
>
> > that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked
> > down platform; the answer to "Fedora on ARM" is "don't buy a Win8 ARM
> > system and expect to run Fedora".
On 06/08/2012 11:55 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2012, at 6:47 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>> And I expect this idea of preventing other OS's from being installed on Win8
>> ARM hardware will not fly in the EU. It's
>> anti-competitive.
> There's no such prevention. It's just that by voluntary a
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 16:29 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 06/08/2012 04:24 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > And? I wasn't speaking to "we should sign our arm images with
> > Microsoft's key", I was speaking to "we should support Secure Boot on
> > arm". If someone wants to build an arm machine with
On Jun 8, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 06/08/2012 10:11 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
>>>
>>> You mean they don't have iPads and Android tablets in the EU?
>
> They do. And there are certainly anti-competitive claims that can be made
> related to certain ARM platforms.
I don't think ant
On Jun 8, 2012, at 6:47 AM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>
> And I expect this idea of preventing other OS's from being installed on Win8
> ARM hardware will not fly in the EU. It's
> anti-competitive.
There's no such prevention. It's just that by voluntary agreement some ARM
hardware is being manufactu
On 06/08/2012 04:24 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 15:16 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
>> Once upon a time, Adam Jackson said:
>>> If there are ARM machines where UEFI and Secure Boot are available,
>>> we're going to have tools to do your own trust database management
>>> anyway, so
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 15:16 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Adam Jackson said:
> > If there are ARM machines where UEFI and Secure Boot are available,
> > we're going to have tools to do your own trust database management
> > anyway, so why would supporting them be any different from
On 06/08/2012 10:11 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Gerry Reno said:
>> And I expect this idea of preventing other OS's from being installed on Win8
>> ARM hardware will not fly in the EU. It's
>> anti-competitive.
> You mean they don't have iPads and Android tablets in the EU?
They
Once upon a time, Gerry Reno said:
> And I expect this idea of preventing other OS's from being installed on Win8
> ARM hardware will not fly in the EU. It's
> anti-competitive.
You mean they don't have iPads and Android tablets in the EU?
--
Chris Adams
Systems and Network Administrator - Hi
On 06/08/2012 09:20 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>> On 06/08/2012 09:00 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
On 06/08/2012 08:07 AM, Mario Torre wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wr
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 06/08/2012 09:00 AM, drago01 wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>>> On 06/08/2012 08:07 AM, Mario Torre wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> that would not allow custom kernel a
On 06/08/2012 09:00 AM, drago01 wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
>> On 06/08/2012 08:07 AM, Mario Torre wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
>>>
that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked
down platform; the
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 06/08/2012 08:07 AM, Mario Torre wrote:
>> On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
>>
>>> that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked
>>> down platform; the answer to "Fedora on ARM" is "don't buy a Win
On 06/08/2012 08:07 AM, Mario Torre wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
>
>> that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked
>> down platform; the answer to "Fedora on ARM" is "don't buy a Win8 ARM
>> system and expect to run Fedora".
> One should b
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked
> down platform; the answer to "Fedora on ARM" is "don't buy a Win8 ARM
> system and expect to run Fedora".
One should be very, very careful with sentences like this one.
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 07:41:32PM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Przemek Klosowski writes:
>
> >What is Fedora ARM planning to do about the upcoming Microsoft
> >hardware certification spec requiring Secure Boot?
>
> Why, all they have to do is simply pay another $99. Problem solved.
We wouldn
Przemek Klosowski writes:
What is Fedora ARM planning to do about the upcoming Microsoft hardware
certification spec requiring Secure Boot?
Why, all they have to do is simply pay another $99. Problem solved.
So, what is the current thinking?
The current consensus seems to be that somethin
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:30 PM, drago01 wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 21:12 +0200, drago01 wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Przemek Klosowski
>>> wrote:
>>> > What is Fedora ARM planning to do about the upcoming Microsoft hardwar
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 21:12 +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Przemek Klosowski
>> wrote:
>> > What is Fedora ARM planning to do about the upcoming Microsoft hardware
>> > certification spec requiring Secure Boot? By th
Once upon a time, Adam Jackson said:
> If there are ARM machines where UEFI and Secure Boot are available,
> we're going to have tools to do your own trust database management
> anyway, so why would supporting them be any different from doing the
> same on x86?
For Windows 8 certification on ARM,
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 21:12 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Przemek Klosowski
> wrote:
> > What is Fedora ARM planning to do about the upcoming Microsoft hardware
> > certification spec requiring Secure Boot? By the spec, there must be a way
> > to disable it on x86, but on
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 13:14 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> What is Fedora ARM planning to do about the upcoming Microsoft hardware
> certification spec requiring Secure Boot? By the spec, there must be a
> way to disable it on x86, but on ARM they expressly prohibit turning it
> off. I guess
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Przemek Klosowski
wrote:
> What is Fedora ARM planning to do about the upcoming Microsoft hardware
> certification spec requiring Secure Boot? By the spec, there must be a way
> to disable it on x86, but on ARM they expressly prohibit turning it off. I
> guess the c
Once upon a time, Przemek Klosowski said:
> What is Fedora ARM planning to do about the upcoming Microsoft hardware
> certification spec requiring Secure Boot? By the spec, there must be a
> way to disable it on x86, but on ARM they expressly prohibit turning it
> off. I guess the current Fedor
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 01:14:57PM -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> What is Fedora ARM planning to do about the upcoming Microsoft
> hardware certification spec requiring Secure Boot? By the spec,
> there must be a way to disable it on x86, but on ARM they expressly
> prohibit turning it off. I gu
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Przemek Klosowski
wrote:
> What is Fedora ARM planning to do about the upcoming Microsoft hardware
> certification spec requiring Secure Boot? By the spec, there must be a way
> to disable it on x86, but on ARM they expressly prohibit turning it off. I
> guess the c
What is Fedora ARM planning to do about the upcoming Microsoft hardware
certification spec requiring Secure Boot? By the spec, there must be a
way to disable it on x86, but on ARM they expressly prohibit turning it
off. I guess the current Fedora/RedHat stance, as explained by Matthew
Garrett,
40 matches
Mail list logo