Is Arch going to sign [this petition](http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement)? I, for one humble user, would like it (us, whatever) to.

Manolo

--

On 06/22/2012 09:09 PM, Manolo Martínez wrote:
> Is Arch going to sign [this petition](http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement)? I, for one humble user, would like it (us, whatever) to.
>
> Manolo
>

Sometimes the political side of open-source is just as important to its
continued success as the technical/development side of the house. I have never
seen a FSF position taken that should not be fully supported by every Linux
distro on the planet. From that standpoint, the Arch signature on the movement
will add weight and legitimacy to the cause and may help further the goal of
limiting, if not killing, secure boot requirements from motherboard companies.

It is one of those simple meaningless movements on first blush -- that just
might end up being one of the most important for the continue booting of
open-source OSs on new hardward.

Decision Maker Archers -- It's worth doing.

--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.

On Jun 25, 2012, at 6:24 AM, David C. Rankin wrote:

> On 06/22/2012 09:09 PM, Manolo Martínez wrote:
>> Is Arch going to sign [this petition](http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement)? I, for one humble user, would like it (us, whatever) to.
>>
>> Manolo

Did anyone sign it? I've got problem once submitting, I'm redirected to crm.fsf.org which says that I must be logged in :/

Am I the only one?

2012/6/25 Geoffroy PLANQUART <geoffroy@planquart.fr>

>
> On Jun 25, 2012, at 6:24 AM, David C. Rankin wrote:
>
> > On 06/22/2012 09:09 PM, Manolo Martínez wrote:
> >> Is Arch going to sign [this petition](
> http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement)?
> I, for one humble user, would like it (us, whatever) to.
> >>
> >> Manolo
>
> Did anyone sign it? I've got problem once submitting, I'm redirected to
> crm.fsf.org which says that I must be logged in :/
>
> Am I the only one?
>
>
It worked for me this morning.



--
Frederic Bezies
fredbezies@gmail.com

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Geoffroy PLANQUART
<geoffroy@planquart.fr> wrote:
> Did anyone sign it? I've got problem once submitting, I'm redirected to crm.fsf.org which says that I must be logged in :/
>
> Am I the only one?

You're definitely not the only one, I'm having the same issue.

~Celti

On 06/25/2012 09:58 AM, Patrick Burroughs wrote:

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Geoffroy PLANQUART
<geoffroy@planquart.fr> wrote:

Did anyone sign it? I've got problem once submitting, I'm redirected to crm.fsf.org which says that I must be logged in :/

Am I the only one?

You're definitely not the only one, I'm having the same issue.

~Celti

I confirm same issue here.

Are fsf servers maybe running on windows servers?? :-)

Sorry for crossposting and that for some lists it becomes a new thread,
but on different lists people reported issues when they tried to sign
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement

I used Firefox 13.0.1 Ubuntu Precise x86_64, JavaScript is enabled and
cookies are allowed, btw., there's a fsf.org cookie in my list. Tracking
isn't allowed, but there anyway are no trackers on fsf.org.

Hth,
Ralf

Sorry for crossposting and that for some lists it becomes a new thread,
but on different lists people reported issues when they tried to sign
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement

I used Firefox 13.0.1 Ubuntu Precise x86_64, JavaScript is enabled and
cookies are allowed, btw., there's a fsf.org cookie in my list. Tracking
isn't allowed, but there anyway are no trackers on fsf.org.

Hth,
Ralf


--
Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list
Ubuntu-Studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users

Sorry for crossposting and that for some lists it becomes a new thread,
but on different lists people reported issues when they tried to sign
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement

I used Firefox 13.0.1 Ubuntu Precise x86_64, JavaScript is enabled and
cookies are allowed, btw., there's a fsf.org cookie in my list. Tracking
isn't allowed, but there anyway are no trackers on fsf.org.

Hth,
Ralf


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1340612787.2252.10.camel@precise

Am 23.06.2012 04:09, schrieb Manolo Martínez:
> Is Arch going to sign [this petition](http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement)? I, for one humble user, would like it (us, whatever) to.
>
> Manolo

While I won't answer your question, I have this to say:

For a non-ARM PC to be certified for Windows 8, the EFI firmware MUST
support Setup Mode. As this is a "MUST" requirement, everyone will
fulfill it, as they really do want the Windows 8 logo (if anyone wants
to look up the source for this, go ahead, I am too lazy right now).

If I understand it right, in Setup Mode, you can either boot any
non-signed operating system, or you can import your own keys into the
firmware, so that you can sign your own bootloaders. For me, this is
enough to not care about Secure Boot.