*countable infinities only

[Seth Johnson]

>On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:00:33AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
>>>> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:54:56AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>>>> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Jay Sulzberger <jays at panix.com> wrote:
>>>> >>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen <ghenriks at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Not to mention that you are effectively telling anyone not currently
>>>> >>>> using "Red Hat Hardware" that they can't run Linux, thus eliminating
>>>> >>>> the ability to gain new Linux users.
>>>
>>>> >>> You have committed a sign error in your argument.
>>>
>>>> >>> Because there are 200 different products being released,
>>>> >>> certainly Red Hat can get another motherboard made.  It would
>>>> >>> just be the 201st such motherboard.
>>>
>>>> >>> Further, this is in answer to just another aspect of the same
>>>> >>> sign error: We do not have to solve any such problem as you pose.
>>>> >>> One superior motherboard would be of great help to Fedora, Red
>>>> >>> Hat, and the free sofwtare movement.  It is hard today I think to
>>>> >>> get Fedora running on some PowerPC systems, on some MIPS systems
>>>> >>> too, and likely very hard on old VAX machines.  So what?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> We do not have to have every motherboard work well with free
>>>> >>> software.  But we do need at least one, and we hope many.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> There certainly needs to be one to lead, but also more to follow so
>>>> >> that that one does not become a target.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> But the best thing is that a free software UEFI would let anybody put
>>>> >> their own key as hardware root, and this would stymie the
>>>> >> rationalizing of big shots holding root and granting signing services
>>>> >> to their hardware.
>>>> >
>>>> > All UEFI implementations we're aware of will be shipping with support
>>>> > for replacing all the secure boot keys, including Pk. UEFI itself is
>>>> > also entirely free software, although specific implementations may not
>>>> > be.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then write a better UEFI.  No need for a shim.
>>>
>>> The machine will have a functional UEFI implementation. Why would we
>>> want to replace it?
>>
>>
>> Um, because you're not asking permission?
>
> I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you're suggesting here. It's
> not possible to simply replace a system's firmware with another
> implementation. You could chainboot from one UEFI implementation into
> another, but if the first implements secure boot then you'd have the
> same set of bootstrapping problems as you would with just booting an OS.


See the fuller thread, reconstructed in nested fashion above.  A free
software UEFI would be on its own hardware.


Seth


>>>> >>
>>>> >> Folks might have to pay extra for this at first, but it would soon be
>>> >> apparent that this is the way it's supposed to be.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Seth