On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Peter Jones <pjones(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I feel like this is quite patronizing. We've stated time and
again that we
don't believe the scenario you're preaching has any real /viability/, and
Sounds like you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with Canonical.
I didn't propose this, the only stuff I proposed fit within the
invariants you set out: That the rules of the game required you to
restrict the system thusly if Fedora was to boot at all.
I was under the impression that you couldn't get a key like that
signed in the first place. But what do I know, it seems like the
experts at canonical don't agree and are going to try several other
routes concurrently.
Canonical seems to be giving this a higher level of organizational
attention[1], vs pure decision making by the engineering guys deep in
the trenches. Obviously this has system implications far beyond a bit
of bootloader code. And as a result it appears that they have a plan
which will make a better stand for software freedom while
simultaneously satisfying the PR interest of "not capitulating to
Microsoft", for whatever value that has.
so we've chosen not to propose it. There's no secret here -
it's possible
to do, but we don't think it'd last very long before our keys are
I'm looking for a message where anyone said "we could do this, but we
expect our keys would eventually be blacklisted" can you help me out?
I think I'd have said "well, you should do that then, put the ball in
Microsoft's court" ::shrugs::
[1]
http://blog.canonical.com/2012/06/22/an-update-on-ubuntu-and-secure-boot/