*countable infinities only

Steve Clark sclark at netwolves.com
Tue Jun 12 16:19:52 UTC 2012

On 06/12/2012 10:58 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> 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.

Stephen Clark
Director of Technology
Phone: 813-579-3200
Fax: 813-882-0209
Email: steve.clark at netwolves.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120612/e416b6e5/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the devel mailing list