On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 2:26 PM, drago01 wrote:
Simply refusing to run because secureboot is enabled (unless there
are
technical reasons) is simply "limiting the users freedom in the name
of freedom" which is unacceptable.
I am making a clear distinction between "simply refusing to run" and
"simply refusing to provide support", which you conveniently ignore.
> This, I think, is equivalent to the fact that a
> provenpackager is not responsible for all the packages in the
> distribution, although he has the necessary permissions for
> modification.
That's nonsense.
It's perfect analogy to me.
Thanks,
Orcan