Upon looking back to when I first started finding an interest in Linux,
the biggest "problem" I had?..was deciding WHICH distro to install!
There were TONS of them!from the Debian & Debian-based, to the Gnome
styles, to the KDE'sLXDE'sLXFCE etc. I finally figured out that
KDE wa
On 07/08/2012 03:43 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote:
On 08.07.2012, suvayu ali wrote:
PS: If you are wondering, what I took from the thread, it's going to be
a pain if at some point the optional requirement to secure boot is
removed.
This reminds me on the past, before the mainboard/BIOS manuf
Am 07.07.2012 16:47, schrieb Frank Murphy:
> On 07/07/12 14:14, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> The tread is about _Fedora_
>>
>> you refuse to understand what i am saying
>>
>> Fedora is NOT relevant because the point is how to run
>> ANY FREE operating system (Linux, BSD, OpenSolaris, Whatever)
>
> T
Am 07.07.2012 16:17, schrieb Heinz Diehl:
> On 07.07.2012, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> do not buy the cheapest consumer crap and you are on the safe side
>> in the BUSINESS market microsoft has nothing to say, really!
>
> Here in Norway, ~99% of all institutions use Windows. Both Windows 7
> for
On 07/08/2012 09:07 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Well, they're the 800 lb. gorilla in the_desktop PC_ room. They're
also a large gorilla in the x86 server room, but they're more like a
small gnat in the tablet room (and maybe a large dog in the smartphone
room).
Actually it's probably more like the
Once upon a time, Dave Ihnat said:
> Once, long ago--actually, on Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 12:20:02AM +0100--Alan Cox
> (a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk) said:
> > Many Android ARM based devices are already locked down. In shouting at
> > Microsoft on the ARM issue you need to point fingers at a lot of othe
On 08/07/12 19:09, Heinz Diehl wrote:
On 08.07.2012, Roger wrote:
Microsoft caused Linux to happen.
Linus Torvalds caused Linux to happen, as a hobby and being
disappointed with minix..
Although, I reckon what came as a result of Linus Torvalds work happened
through devs getting together whi
On 08/07/12 19:09, Heinz Diehl wrote:
On 08.07.2012, Roger wrote:
Microsoft caused Linux to happen.
Linus Torvalds caused Linux to happen, as a hobby and being
disappointed with minix..
Oops. Soribouthat.
Roger
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change sub
On 08.07.2012, Roger wrote:
> Microsoft caused Linux to happen.
Linus Torvalds caused Linux to happen, as a hobby and being
disappointed with minix..
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listi
On 08.07.2012, Eddie G.O'Connor Jr-I wrote:
> This is why I consider Linux the "better" technology!not many other
> vendors of software would ALLOW you to hack away at their code just for your
> own personal achievement!
Jupp! Using Wind*ws and Endnote (which my University provides gratis),
On 08/07/12 15:52, Eddie G.O'Connor Jr-I wrote:
On 07/08/2012 01:13 AM, Roger wrote:
My opinion.
so NO microsoft is not in any position to control the x86 market
I have been watching this thread with interest.
Conversation to date raises, for me, a number of points.
1. None of this would be
On 08.07.2012, suvayu ali wrote:
> PS: If you are wondering, what I took from the thread, it's going to be
> a pain if at some point the optional requirement to secure boot is
> removed.
This reminds me on the past, before the mainboard/BIOS manufacturers
picked it up as an sales-idea: p
On 07/08/2012 01:13 AM, Roger wrote:
My opinion.
so NO microsoft is not in any position to control the x86 market
I have been watching this thread with interest.
Conversation to date raises, for me, a number of points.
1. None of this would be necessary if Microsoft produced quality,
secure
My opinion.
so NO microsoft is not in any position to control the x86 market
I have been watching this thread with interest.
Conversation to date raises, for me, a number of points.
1. None of this would be necessary if Microsoft produced quality, secure
operating systems in the first instanc
On 07/07/2012 11:37 AM, Antonio Olivares wrote:
so NO microsoft is not in any position to control the x86
market
if they try federal commissions and the european union are
the
first rember them on their own history (maybe you are not
^(remember)
aware of
because too young)
http://en.w
On 07/07/2012 10:17 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote:
On 07.07.2012, Reindl Harald wrote:
do not buy the cheapest consumer crap and you are on the safe side
in the BUSINESS market microsoft has nothing to say, really!
Here in Norway, ~99% of all institutions use Windows. Both Windows 7
for their desktop
On 07/07/2012 09:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 07.07.2012 15:05, schrieb Fernando Cassia:
Thus, for starters, RedHat´s decision to pay for a signing key is the
practical approach, so users will be able to boot Fedora without
tweaking their BIOS/CMOS settings.
But what I think could be challen
On 07/07/2012 09:05 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On x86 systems, the ability to disable secure boot is mandated by
Microsoft and needed to debug Microsoft drivers and since all the
hardware manufacturers want to comply to this specification,
On 07/07/2012 08:55 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote:
We're not. Micr*soft dominates, and they can virtually do anything
they like.
Not if the US DOJ and the Federal Trade Comission gets involved.
Remember the US-DOJ trial with judge Thomas Penfiel
On 07/07/2012 04:08 AM, Kevin Wilson wrote:
Hi,
Than a lot for your quick answer!
kevin
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
On 07/07/12 08:57, Kevin Wilson wrote:
see
http://lwn.net/Articles/503803
That this means that from F18 on, fedora will cost 99$ for every
installatio
On 07/07/2012 08:44 PM, Dave Ihnat wrote:
Once, long ago--actually, on Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 12:20:02AM +0100--Alan Cox
(a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk) said:
Many Android ARM based devices are already locked down. In shouting at
Microsoft on the ARM issue you need to point fingers at a lot of other
p
Once, long ago--actually, on Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 12:20:02AM +0100--Alan Cox
(a...@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk) said:
> Many Android ARM based devices are already locked down. In shouting at
> Microsoft on the ARM issue you need to point fingers at a lot of other
> people too.
Quite true, and I'm happy t
On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 09:27:34 -0500
Dave Ihnat wrote:
> Once, long ago--actually, on Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 02:54:11PM +0200--Reindl
> Harald (h.rei...@thelounge.net) said:
> > Micorsoft is NOT in teh position to close the x86 market only for
> > them because if the would try it history repeats and
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 07/07/12 17:03, Richard Vickery wrote:
>
>>
>> One can always go through Dell to get a Linux computer without the
>> Micros**t crap. It comes with Ubuntu preinstalled, but one has the
>> option of installing Fedora.
>>
>>
> From what I gat
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 07/07/2012 03:21 AM, suvayu ali wrote:
>>
>> I am more worried about "free" as in freedom. I don't quite grasp the
>> implications as an end user. For example consider the following
>> scenarios.
>
>
> Didn't we hash this out less than a month a
On 07.07.2012 13:58, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:21 AM, suvayu ali
> wrote:
>> I realise I can turn Secure Boot off, but hardware manufacturers have
>> often dropped the ball on complying with standards. What if the next
>> generation of motherboards/laptops make it hard
On 07/07/2012 03:21 AM, suvayu ali wrote:
I am more worried about "free" as in freedom. I don't quite grasp the
implications as an end user. For example consider the following
scenarios.
Didn't we hash this out less than a month ago? I know you've been on
the list long enough to have seen it
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 18:14:19 +0530
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 07/07/2012 03:51 PM, suvayu ali wrote:
>
> >
> > I am more worried about "free" as in freedom. I don't quite grasp
> > the implications as an end user. For example consider the following
> > scenarios.
> >
> > Can I freely choose to
On Sat, 2012-07-07 at 10:57 +0300, Kevin Wilson wrote:
> I have a question about UEFI in fedora 18: I see in lwn.net article:
Wrong list. Ask on the Test list, not here.
poc
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedorapr
On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 09:34:21 -0500
Dave Ihnat wrote:
> Once, long ago--actually, on Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 03:21:09PM
> +0200--Reindl Harald (h.rei...@thelounge.net) said:
> > the whole "secure boot" idea is crap
>
> Hmm...no, it's not. It's crap *as implemented*.
>
> Want a not-crap implementati
> > http://lwn.net/Articles/503803
> > That this means that from F18 on,
> fedora will cost 99$ for every installation?
> >
>
> Discussion on fedora-devel is still ongoing:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-June/167732.html
>
> But from what I gather,
> the fedoraproject a
Hi Rahul,
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Can I freely choose to use proprietary (or for that matter alternative
>> free) drivers for my hardware from whatever source I prefer?
>
> On x86 systems, the ability to disable secure boot is mandated by
> Microsoft and needed to
On 07/07/12 17:03, Richard Vickery wrote:
One can always go through Dell to get a Linux computer without the
Micros**t crap. It comes with Ubuntu preinstalled, but one has the
option of installing Fedora.
From what I gather before Dell stopped pushing the Dell\Ubuntu desktops,
they were even
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Carroll Grigsby wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 08:58:31 -0300
> Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:21 AM, suvayu ali
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I realise I can turn Secure Boot off, but hardware manufacturers
> > > have often dropped the ball on c
> so NO microsoft is not in any position to control the x86
> market
> if they try federal commissions and the european union are
> the
> first rember them on their own history (maybe you are not
^(remember)
> aware of
> because too young)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v.
On 07/07/12 14:14, Reindl Harald wrote:
The tread is about _Fedora_
you refuse to understand what i am saying
Fedora is NOT relevant because the point is how to run
ANY FREE operating system (Linux, BSD, OpenSolaris, Whatever)
To you maybe:
The OP asked as per Subject:Fedora 18 and UEF
Once, long ago--actually, on Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 03:21:09PM +0200--Reindl
Harald (h.rei...@thelounge.net) said:
> the whole "secure boot" idea is crap
Hmm...no, it's not. It's crap *as implemented*.
Want a not-crap implementation?
o Firmware ships with a non-MS form of UEFI.
o You instal
Once, long ago--actually, on Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 02:54:11PM +0200--Reindl
Harald (h.rei...@thelounge.net) said:
> Micorsoft is NOT in teh position to close the x86 market only for
> them because if the would try it history repeats and these days the
> EU would be the next killing their business i
Am 07.07.2012 15:05, schrieb Fernando Cassia:
> Thus, for starters, RedHat´s decision to pay for a signing key is the
> practical approach, so users will be able to boot Fedora without
> tweaking their BIOS/CMOS settings.
>
> But what I think could be challenged with antitrust regulators is
> Mi
Am 07.07.2012 14:51, schrieb Frank Murphy:
> On 07/07/12 13:48, Reindl Harald wrote:
there is a big enough market with customers which will
make the pressure to the manufacturers to produce
recent hardware where you can urn off secure boot
>>>
>>> Verified Statistics please?
>>
>>
Am 07.07.2012 14:46, schrieb Carroll Grigsby:
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 08:58:31 -0300
> Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
>> I think we are bigger enough to say no and buy only hardware
>> compatible.
>
> Good luck with that! I've been thinking about replacing this computer
> with something newer, so whe
On 07.07.2012, Reindl Harald wrote:
> do not buy the cheapest consumer crap and you are on the safe side
> in the BUSINESS market microsoft has nothing to say, really!
Here in Norway, ~99% of all institutions use Windows. Both Windows 7
for their desktop environment, and Windows server for their
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On x86 systems, the ability to disable secure boot is mandated by
> Microsoft and needed to debug Microsoft drivers and since all the
> hardware manufacturers want to comply to this specification, you can be
> rest assured they will provide t
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> We're not. Micr*soft dominates, and they can virtually do anything
> they like.
Not if the US DOJ and the Federal Trade Comission gets involved.
Remember the US-DOJ trial with judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found
MSFT GUILTY. The fact that late
On 07/07/12 13:48, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 07.07.2012 14:45, schrieb Frank Murphy:
On 07/07/12 13:34, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 07.07.2012 14:19, schrieb Frank Murphy:
On 07/07/12 12:58, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
I think we are bigger enough to say no and buy only hardware compatible.
Not
Am 07.07.2012 14:34, schrieb Heinz Diehl:
> On 07.07.2012, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
>
>> I think we are bigger enough to say no and buy only hardware compatible.
>
> We're not. Micr*soft dominates, and they can virtually do anything
> they like.
we are!
do not buy the cheapest consumer cr
Am 07.07.2012 14:19, schrieb Frank Murphy:
> On 07/07/12 12:58, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
>>
>> I think we are bigger enough to say no and buy only hardware compatible.
>>
> Not my first choice.
> Been left with Old hardware as only option no thanks.
who said that?
there is a big enough market w
On Sat, 7 Jul 2012 08:58:31 -0300
Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:21 AM, suvayu ali
> wrote:
> >
> > I realise I can turn Secure Boot off, but hardware manufacturers
> > have often dropped the ball on complying with standards. What if
> > the next generation of motherboards
On 07/07/2012 03:51 PM, suvayu ali wrote:
>
> I am more worried about "free" as in freedom. I don't quite grasp the
> implications as an end user. For example consider the following
> scenarios.
>
> Can I freely choose to use proprietary (or for that matter alternative
> free) drivers for my har
On 07.07.2012, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
> I think we are bigger enough to say no and buy only hardware compatible.
We're not. Micr*soft dominates, and they can virtually do anything
they like.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
On 07.07.2012, suvayu ali wrote:
> Can I freely choose to use proprietary (or for that matter alternative
> free) drivers for my hardware from whatever source I prefer?
As long as you use UEFI/secure boot, your driver has to be signed.
So you have to build and deploy your own keypair/signatures
On 07/07/12 12:58, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
I think we are bigger enough to say no and buy only hardware compatible.
Not my first choice.
Been left with Old hardware as only option no thanks.
I think Linux is pragmatic, rather than dogmatic.
--
Regards,
Frank
"Jack of all, fubars"
--
us
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 7:21 AM, suvayu ali wrote:
>
> I realise I can turn Secure Boot off, but hardware manufacturers have
> often dropped the ball on complying with standards. What if the next
> generation of motherboards/laptops make it harder to turn off secure
> boot? Just to make it clear, t
Hi Rahul,
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Certificate authority is Verisign and this is purely between Red Hat and
> the vendor. There is no money charged for users. Users will never be
> asked to pay money to install or use Fedora.
I am more worried about "free" as in
On 07/07/2012 02:00 PM, Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
> Kevin,
> On 7 July 2012 08:57, Kevin Wilson wrote:
>> http://lwn.net/Articles/503803
>> That this means that from F18 on, fedora will cost 99$ for every
>> installation?
> As I understand it, it's a one-off $99 payment for the dev portal
> access f
Kevin,
On 7 July 2012 08:57, Kevin Wilson wrote:
> http://lwn.net/Articles/503803
> That this means that from F18 on, fedora will cost 99$ for every
> installation?
As I understand it, it's a one-off $99 payment for the dev portal
access for the signing service, in the end actual money goes to t
Hi,
Than a lot for your quick answer!
kevin
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 07/07/12 08:57, Kevin Wilson wrote:
>>
>> see
>> http://lwn.net/Articles/503803
>> That this means that from F18 on, fedora will cost 99$ for every
>> installation?
>>
>
> Discussion on fedora-d
On 07/07/12 08:57, Kevin Wilson wrote:
see
http://lwn.net/Articles/503803
That this means that from F18 on, fedora will cost 99$ for every installation?
Discussion on fedora-devel is still ongoing:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-June/167732.html
But from what I gather,
Hi, everyone,
I have a question about UEFI in fedora 18: I see in lwn.net article:
"Fedora's strategy is to enroll in Microsoft's developer program,
which allows the project to purchase an approved $99 key through
Verisign, a key which will be recognized by UEFI secure boot. The key
will be used t
59 matches
Mail list logo
