*countable infinities only

[Orcan Ogetbil]

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