[sf-lug] Fedora dealing with UEFI

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Sun Jun 3 21:31:44 PDT 2012

Seems to have somehow ended up in offlist private mail.  (Please do not
move an onlist public thread to offlist private mail unless you actually
have a need for privacy, and then please explain why that is.  The
reason I participate in public threads is to have a public discussion.)

----- Forwarded message from Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever at dslextreme.com> -----

Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 21:25:17 -0700
From: Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever at dslextreme.com>
To: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
Subject: Re: [sf-lug] Fedora dealing with UEFI
Reply-To: bliss-sf4ever at dslextreme.com
Organization: none

On 06/03/2012 06:12 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Bobbie Sellers (bliss-sf4ever at dslextreme.com):
>> On 06/02/2012 02:15 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
>>> Quoting Bobbie Sellers (bliss-sf4ever at dslextreme.com):
>>>> Fedora Linux capitulates to Microsoft boot certificate
>>>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> No.  That's simply wrong.
>>      Thanks for your explication of the matter but I did not write that
>> nor did the man whose work I copied write it but it is a headline
>> on a Google reference when searching on the terms, UEFI - Linux.
> Yes, and it's simply wrong -- as I said.
> You claimed you were posting it 'FYI' -- for your information -- but the
> net effect of your posting was mostly misinformation, particularly the
> ITworld.com headline (above) that you quoted and heavily featured.
>> You discarded my reference to having gotten it from the Usenet.
> What I said was 'simply wrong' was NOT from Usenet, but rather from
> ITworld.com.  You forgot so soon?  You provided the URL in your post
> right above your quotation of the ITworld.com guy's headline:
> http://www.itworld.com/open-source/279459/fedora-linux-capitulates-microsoft-boot-certificate?page=0,0
> Sorry, that headline's simply wrong.  Thus my point:  simply wrong.
> It would have been no less wrong if you'd quoted it from Usenet, but in
> fact you quoted it from ITworld.com.

    No I quoted if from the Usenet post referenced below.  My checking
was of the URLs
involved simply as I said to be sure they dealt in however flawed a
manner with
the subjects mentioned.

>> That line of reference and my name at the bottom were the only
>> contributions I made to the post which I only checked to make sure
>> it was about Linux and had somewhat to do with the matter.
> OK, what's your point?
> I wished to correct the impression you created in posting it, by
> explaining why it was simply wrong.  So, I did so.
> If you believe it's somehow unsporting to point out that someting you
> post is simply wrong merely because you were quoting someone else, I
> respectfully disagree.

    It is simply wrong to claim that I wrote anything besides that one
line and my

            And I wished to correct your mis-apprehension as to the
of the posting which you did by cutting my reference to the Usenet where I
found both URLs in a single post by a user styling himself Bit Twister
which I found in alt.os.linux.mandriva,
 xref:mx04.eternal-september.org alt.os.linux.mandriva:26290

    Again thank you for the explication of the matters in regards to
UEFI and Secure Boot.


----- End forwarded message -----

More information about the sf-lug mailing list