*countable infinities only

[Gerald Henriksen]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 00:09:37 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:

>
>
>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.

No, the issue is how do we make it easy for people to try and/or
install Fedora after the new hardware ships.

Microsoft has bigger threats than Linux to worry about these days (if
Microsoft wanted to kill Linux they would not have compromised on
secure boot).

>> 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.

People don't buy hardware for the BIOS or UEFI, they buy it based on
price and feature offered (processor, PCI slots, etc).

There is no way for Red Hat to offer the variety of hardware required.