*countable infinities only

[Jay Sulzberger]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:21:14 -0400 (EDT)
> Jay Sulzberger <jays at panix.com> wrote:
>
>> I think 50 million dollars toward buying, and properly arranging
>> the UEFI, of several lots of x86 computers would indeed solve
>> part of the problem you point out.
>>
>> Why not?
>
> Why? 50million dollars is a big order, but I don't see how this would
> change MicroSoft's mind, or the vendors who still wish to sell Windows
> 8 client certified systems.

It is hard to answer this so direct declaration of hopelessness.

Look, once Project GNU and the Linux kernel did not exist.

The present situation where GNU/Linux systems are installed on
many million machines did not suddenly happen from one day to the
next.  There was no midnight such that one minute before midnight
no GNU/Linux OSes ran, and one minute after, millions ran.

Your framing of the issue here is ridiculous.  The issue is not
whether we can stop by tomorrow morning every hardware vendor on
Earth from doing business with Microsoft.  No the issue is:

   Must we aid and abet Microsoft in the Microsoft campaign to
   extinguish free sofware.

>
> Out of curiosity, what would be different about these machines you
> propose?
>
> Secure boot off by default?
> Secure boot completely removed?

We write the code for the UEFI.  Our interface is better, and our
facilities offer better choices.

>
>> What does Red Hat have to lose?
>
> 50 million dollars?
>
>> If Red Hat takes no effective action, then Red Hat will lose much
>> more than 50 million dollars, and very soon too.
>
> I'm afraid I don't follow your logic here, sorry.
>
> kevin

Fifty million dollars is a small amount, considering that Red
Hat, if Red Hat agrees that Red Hat OSes require a license from
Microsoft, will cease to exist the day that Microsoft refuses a
license.  On the day of the agreement, in any case, Red Hat would
cease to exist as a business independent of Microsoft.

oo--JS.