*countable infinities only

[Jay Sulzberger]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, drago01 <drago01 at gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Nicu Buculei <nicu_fedora at nicubunu.ro> wrote:
> > On 06/12/2012 12:58 PM, drago01 wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Nicu Buculei wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The point is we have a target audience:
> >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_base
> >>>
> >>> Our desired users ARE contributors.
> >>
> >>
> >> We do have a mission as well:
> >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#Our_Mission
> >>
> >> "The Fedora Project consistently seeks to create, improve, and spread
> >> free/libre code and content. "
> >
> >
> > And Bingo! the mission is all about freedom.
> 
> I didn't deny that.
> 
> >> Which you don't do by excluding users ... sure we want to gain new
> >> contributors but that does not mean that we should exclude other
> >> users.
> >
> >
> > Not if it affects our freedom, is a problem of freedom versus convenience.
> 
> No because secure boot does not limit your freedom in *any* way. If
> you want to hack on the kernel or other low level stuff flip a switch
> in the firmware.
> It is reasonable to expect this type of users to be able to do that.

Up until now, installing a free OS did not require the extra
moves, which Fedora admits are irksome.  If Microsoft succeeds in
imposing Microsoft Root Control, then it becomes even harder to
install free software, as compared to running a Microsoft OS
which is already loaded on the box at point of sale.  If we let
them, Microsoft will have erected yet another barrier to running
free software.

ad diction: "SecureBoot" does not mean "secure boot" in the
situation where a large rich entity hostile to free software
holds the unique key which allows booting on the hardware.  To
continue to call the arrangement under which Microsoft holds the
root key to the hardware "SecureBoot" is inaccurate.  If any
Fedora developer uses the term without explanation of its real
meaning, that developer suggests to those listening, that the
developer thinks that Microsoft holding the root key is more
secure than Fedora holding the root key, or the owner of the
hardware holding the root key.

It is ridiculous to use a term invented by Microsoft to mislead
people who do not understand that "SecureBoot" means Root Control
by Microsoft.

> 
> > If spreading to some users means losing some freedom, then I think that is
> > against the mission.
> 
> We are not loosing any freedom we are implementing a technology that
> makes fedora work out of the box on newer hardware.

No, if we have to beg Microsoft for permission to conveniently
install Fedora, we have lost our freedom to conveniently, without
asking permission of Microsoft, install Fedora.  Why should we
beg Microsoft for a power which last month we had, and which
Microsoft has seized to itself?

Of course the actions by Microsoft are against anti-trust law in
the US and in Europe grossly violate the rule against tying of
software and hardware.  And claiming "Why you could pirouette and
do a handspring backwards, and if Microsoft agrees, then you can
install Fedora, so there is no extra bar to installation." is
incorrect.  Before now we did not have to do the pirouette and
handspring.  Before the New Microsoft Regime of Booting, we did
not have to beg Microsoft to sign our keys.

No.  Our side must here stand and fight.

oo--JS.