*countable infinities only

Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell at gmail.com
Sun Jun 17 17:32:45 UTC 2012

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> wrote:
> It was justified. Only one is speculation. The other utilizes evidence and a track record of behavior.

... Right,  In one case the actual participants in the discussion have
expressed doubt that they had any effect, and in the other we have a
company which has been previously convinced multiple times in multiple
jurisdictions of unlawfully using their market force in the desktop
space to suppress competition.

I think it's all worthless speculation. But the alternative worthless
speculation I offered is the one backed by a track record.

>> I certainly have not done this and by using this argument against me
> You're paranoid. Are you a "handful of people"?

I'm the person you were responding to and quoting.  If you weren't
trying to smear me with those claims why did you bother including
them, am I to believe it was just "an observation on the weather"?

And again, here you are with the emotionally laden accusations of poor
mental health.  "Paranoid", and later you continue with undirected
criticisms towards "conspiracy theorists". I'm sure if I ask you to
substantiate where any argument I've made has justified dismissal with
that label you'd again respond that it had nothing to do with me and
that I was being paranoid for suspecting that your comments in a
message directed to me, quoting my message, and otherwise generally
appearing to respond to me actually had anything to do with anything
I've written in the slightest.

> And repeating yourself is going to get you a different answer than you've already gotten, naturally. It couldn't possibly be that the argument is inapplicable or uncompelling.

Except it hasn't gotten an answer. I assume because there is nothing
really to answer. As far as I can tell simply a matter of fact that
the cryptographic lockdown will not meaningfully increase security for
Fedora users.  Perhaps it'll make for a nice bit of security-theater
marketing, but the actual malware authors will not be deterred by it
because controlling the boot sector isn't a goal of malware, it's a
means and there are plenty of more or less equally good means to the
same end which are left exposed.

>>> The Windows 8 certification is the most significant change in Microsoft's hardware requirements ever, as far as I can tell. It's a significant departure from their "support legacy at most any cost" position prior to this. Clearly they are more than a bit concerned about boot loader malware than they are gaining, what, 1%, by obliterating the entirety of desktop Linux with this conspiracy.
> Old hardware that doesn't meet the Windows 8 hardware requirements can't claim to be made for Windows 8. If a vendor wants that certification and logo usage as an OEM, they have to meet the requirements for that certification. Simple. I'm only opining that those requirements represent the most aggressive change I've seen from Microsoft to date.

Old hardware that didn't meet the Window XP logo requirements couldn't
claim to be made for Windows at that time.  I couldn't judge if this
was an more than typically aggressive change or not— I'll take your
word for it— but you claimed that there was a significant departure
from "support legacy at most any cost", and I'm not seeing it.

> I therefore further opine conspiracy theorists necessarily have to believe that the conspiracy is primarily to obliterate a ~1% market, and that this piddly market is a greater concern to Microsoft than boot loader malware, or face planting with Windows 8, Metro, Windows Phone 7.x, 8.x, RT, or their

I've never said nor thought that.  As far as I can tell it's a move to
achieve greater and more consistent control of the whole platform in
order to extract greater revenues from add-ons (things like "Media
center pack"), gain access to additional revenue streams (Metro app
store), and provide a user experience more competitive with Apple's
(not gunked up with crazy drivers added by every intermediary the
system goes through).   If it also suppresses some Linux along the
way, thats actually an unfortunate outcome— Microsoft is already being
paid for Windows for those systems, and anti-competitive behavior
invites unwelcome regulatory scrutiny.

... and so what?  That fact that it's almost certainly not all some
diabolical plan doesn't make the resulting inequality it generates
between RedHat and it's upstream and downstreams any more justifiable.

More information about the devel mailing list