On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:53:39 PST, Greg KH said: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 01:45:15PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@private wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:28:27 EST, James Morris said: > > > On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, David Safford wrote: > > > > > > > The term, unfortunately seems to have stuck in the literature. Vista i s > > > > claiming a similar trusted boot, so perhaps we should keep the term, > > > > while trying to be clearer about what it really means. > > > > > > Who cares about Vista? > > > > Those of us who, in order to deploy this, will need to get a signature from > > a PHB who can spell Vista and heard about trusted boot from a 8.5x11 glossy .... > > And this affects the kernel code how? Please document what it really > does, leave the marketing to others. Of course, our kernel *code* should be done the way *we* want to do it. I was addressing the question of "Who cares what Vista calls it?" So I guess I'm saying we should have a comment block or small Documentation/ file that explains and clarifies the difference, that we can point at the same way we now point at stable-api-nonsense.txt ;)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed Nov 16 2005 - 12:40:32 PST