dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
16
share rss forum feed


FF4m3

@verizon.net
reply to rexbinary

Re: Red Hat users pay up to run Fedora on Windows 8 machines

From DistroWatch:

Up to this point we have heard from Red Hat employees and Fedora developers on the subject of supporting secure boot, but what do developers of distributions derived from Fedora think of the move to support secure booting?

Chris Smart, the man behind the Kororaa distribution, summed up his thoughts in an e-mail as, "For me, it's sort of like this: If Fedora does not support secure boot, then neither Fedora nor remixes like Kororaa can boot on computers with secure boot enabled (that's obvious).

If Fedora does support secure boot however, then remixes still can't boot on computers with secure boot enabled (loosely speaking).

So actually, there's isn't really any freedom lost to Kororaa. We couldn't run on secure boot machines anyway, whether Fedora supported secure boot or not. The only advantage is that Fedora can (and we could too, if we got a key)."

Mr Smart goes on to say, "Kororaa will probably require users to disable secure boot if they want to run version 18, that's at least until we can get a clearer picture of what's happening...

I think it's important to realise too, that this only affects brand new computers (and those with secure boot enabled by default) -- that's going to be a small percentage of the user-base who are installing Linux in the short to medium term."

In an effort to clear up any misunderstanding Tim Burke, VP of Linux Engineering at Red Hat, has posted a blog of his own addressing the secure boot and signing key issue. The explanation contains some good news, "In the interest of freedom of choice, some users may not want to utilize this secure boot capability. In the UEFI system menu, they are able to disable the feature and things should operate like they do currently."

There's some less pleasant news too. Mr Burke also suggests people wishing to "Take Fedora and rebuild custom variants to meet personal interest or experiment in new innovations... can also participate by simply enrolling in the $99 one time fee to license." And he concludes on the hopeful note: "Suffice it to say that Red Hat would not have endorsed this model if we were not comfortable that it is a good-faith initiative."


TuxRaiderPen

join:2009-09-19

said by FF4m3 :
quote:
"Suffice it to say that Red Hat would not have endorsed this model if we were not comfortable that it is a good-faith initiative."

Suffice it to say you DRANK THE FLAVOR ADE and have joined the dark side! (Not that really was too far in my view!)

You can spin this all you want, its BS....

Linux users, developers et al need to Just say NO to secure boot! (Yes, maybe this is a good idea, possibly, maybe, IF it were IMPLEMENTED VASTLY DIFFERENT! And the micintelafia was not involved in this.. Intel may be a developing force behind UEFI, but you can gurantee it was at the behest of some one else, especially some of this which only serves to benefit one particular company and its crap software.

Its a solution to a problem that only plagues one alleged OS.

Don't let the smoke, mirros, dogs, ponnies, ballons, and sweet fruity drinks con you people! This is nothing about "security" its about competition lockout! Period.


firephoto
We the people
Premium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA

said by TuxRaiderPen:

said by FF4m3 :
quote:
"Suffice it to say that Red Hat would not have endorsed this model if we were not comfortable that it is a good-faith initiative."

Don't let the smoke, mirros, dogs, ponnies, ballons, and sweet fruity drinks con you people! This is nothing about "security" its about competition lockout! Period.

You're on a roll this morning.

I agree this isn't much about real security, manipulating competition is far more important to the players involved who don't have much of a history of actually competing against each other.

This pandering to the secure boot settings ensures one thing too for sure, Microsoft will retain a large number of installations due to dual boot on oem machines and it's possibly what this whole psych game is about.

The reality of it is that it doesn't affect a majority slice of the overall Linux pie, just one of the more noisy pieces with a big corporate megaphone.
--
Say no to JAMS!

TuxRaiderPen

join:2009-09-19

said by firephoto:
You're on a roll this morning.

Try the veal.... tip your waitress... I am here all week! badddabump....

said by firephoto:
I agree this isn't much about real security, manipulating competition is far more important to the players involved who don't have much of a history of actually competing against each other.

This pandering to the secure boot settings ensures one thing too for sure, Microsoft will retain a large number of installations due to dual boot on oem machines and it's possibly what this whole psych game is about.
DING DING DING DING!! ! ! some one else who didn't drink or inhale!

said by firephoto:
The reality of it is that it doesn't affect a majority slice of the overall Linux pie, just one of the more noisy pieces with a big corporate megaphone.
Don't matter how much they are running their mouthpice, they don't have much positive "cred" with me. And with this I would serious start to question their involvement in things like the kernel and look at any code contribution as tainted and possible security risk.

This thing stinks more than a landfill on a 102 degree August day!