Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 31st May 2012 11:11 UTC
Fedora Core "Fedora 18 will be released at around the same time as Windows 8, and as previously discussed all Windows 8 hardware will be shipping with secure boot enabled by default. [...] We've been working on a plan for dealing with this. It's not ideal, but of all the approaches we've examined we feel that this one offers the best balance between letting users install Fedora while still permitting user freedom." Wait for it... "Our first stage bootloader will be signed with a Microsoft key."
Thread beginning with comment 520419
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Ehmm...
by ilovebeer on Sat 2nd Jun 2012 04:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ehmm..."
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

You're the one who thinks it's ok that owners don't have the keys to their own property. Is that not a fair assessment of your opinion?

Considering I've never said anything in support of your claim, no. Your problem is that you don't pay attention. When you read something you seem to read into it whatever you make up at that moment rather than simply taking the words for what they're worth. I'm straight forward. My posts don't need to be decoded or deciphered. If you're going to reply to me, at least stick to what I've actually said.

I honestly don't care that your opinion differs from mine, but quit bashing others who disagree with you - that doesn't make us stupid trolls. Just because you don't have a problem with closed computers doesn't mean that none of us has anything to loose as more hardware becomes closed.

I have neither bashed anyones opinion, nor have I ever said I don't have a problem with closed computers. It seems as though I have to correct you yet AGAIN. I'll try to make this as clear as I can so you don't confuse yourself...again:

1. I don't care who agrees or disagrees with my views.
2. I don't fall for the idea that closed computers is/will be the computer armageddon that FUD'ers (like you) would have everyone believe.

You keep asserting developers will have access to open hardware, but once again I haven't denied that. It does nothing to dismiss the fact that I'm no longer be able to share my apps/OS directly with friends/relatives/coworkers/etc because the hardware they "own" won't permit them to run my software. Even if you don't care yourself, you must concede that not being able to distribute/run/modify software is a huge blow to the open source model, or indeed anyone who just wants to share their software without needing corporate permission. You can blame owners if you want to, but you still can't evade the fact that closed computing hurts open source.

You still don't get it. So again, ..... When you willingly choose to develop software for a closed system, you are bound to the rules that govern that closed systems whether you like it or not. Sitting there whining about it is ridiculous at best.

Think of closed systems as a circle and open source as a triangle. Your problem is that you keep trying to shove the triangle into a hole made for a circle. Rather than wanting so desperately for closed systems to be something they're not, why don't you spend your efforts bettering the open systems?

Maybe you have a vendetta against open computing/open source, maybe your astroturfing, whatever the case may be you can't reasonably deny that this shift goes against the concept of owners controlling their own hardware. At the very least, you should admit to this.

Considering I'm an active participant and contributor to open source projects, no, I have no vendetta again it. How ridiculous & meritless of a claim. Aside of that, I'm not the one worked into a panic because my imagination conjured up a future in which users are totally and completely locked out of their systems. The sky is not falling. The theater is not on fire. But that obviously hasn't stopped people from fearing they will be. Even when reality gives them no solid reason to think so.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Ehmm...
by Alfman on Sat 2nd Jun 2012 18:43 in reply to "RE[5]: Ehmm..."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

ilovebeer,

At least you seem to be aware of the contradiction that owners aren't true owners when someone else holds the keys. So which is it? Are you ok with owners not being free to replace the keys on their own property or not? Considering this is what you called me a troll for pointing out...I at least feel entitled to a strait answer.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Ehmm...
by ilovebeer on Sun 3rd Jun 2012 17:55 in reply to "RE[6]: Ehmm..."
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

ilovebeer,

At least you seem to be aware of the contradiction that owners aren't true owners when someone else holds the keys. So which is it? Are you ok with owners not being free to replace the keys on their own property or not? Considering this is what you called me a troll for pointing out...I at least feel entitled to a strait answer.

I've already said a person who buys a computer owns only the hardware itself, not the software. That's about as simple as it gets. Do you mean to tell me you don't know whether a key is a software or hardware component?

I have no problem with owners not being able to change the keys if they have no problem with it. However, there's no evidence to suggest owners can't change their keys so once again this is claiming the sky is falling when it is not.

I personally will not purchase hardware in which I can't change the keys myself, or I can't circumvent the lock down.

You need to realize different people have different ideas of what's acceptable and what isn't. If people are provided with more security and less problems, they'll likely be fine with it. For those who aren't they will find alternatives. If "I" am fine with a locked down system, who are you to tell me otherwise?

Reply Parent Score: 2