To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
mjg59,
"The only real difference is that Fedora will be requiring a signed kernel and Ubuntu won't. I think we've explained why we believe a signed kernel is necessary."
I understand the reasons for your decision, but man locking up the kernel from user tinkering must have really clashed with your open source philosophy.
I'm sure you've thought this through more than I have, but my pragmatic impression is that running Fedora under MS's keys offers short term benefits, but comes with severe long term consequences and legitimises microsoft's control over secure boot.
Of course I'm not blaming you guys at all, the situation sucks all around, but a tiny spirit in me wishes you might have put up more of a fight. If the largest linux distros fold, then it seems pretty hopeless for the rest of us.





Member since:
2007-08-20
I'm certainly not an expert in this, but from what I've seen, I agree. (In fact, I half wonder why Fedora isn't going the same route.)
This whole "Secure Boot" thing has me upset at Microsoft to a degree I haven't been for several years. The x86/x64 situation is bad enough, but the ARM (WinRT) situation really burns me up.