*countable infinities only

[Gerald Henriksen]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:23:53 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:

>
>
>On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen <ghenriks at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 01:09:52 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>> 
>> >On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett <mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:21:14PM -0400, Jay Sulzberger 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?
>> >> 
>> >> Because said machines would cost more than identical hardware with 
>> >> different firmware. Sales of Linux-specific PC hardware haven't been 
>> >> massively successful so far.
>> >> 
>> >> -- 
>> >> Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org
>> >
>> >Why should they cost more?
>> >
>> >And suppose they cost $20 more.  Let Red Hat pay this, and/or run
>> >an ad campaign explaining that with this motherboard, you can
>> >actually know what is running on the machine.
>> 
>> So now your solution to the problem is to have Red Hat subsidize the
>> hardware (aka lose money).   That is a good way to go out of business
>> in a hurry.
>> 
>> >ad previous lack of success of sales of GNU/Linux machines: In
>> >every case I know, Microsoft just bribed/threatened the vendor to
>> >stop selling the machines.
>> 
>> Of course it could have nothing to do with the Linux community failing
>> to provide what the customers wanted, everything has to be a
>> conspiracy.
>> 
>> >If Red Hat accedes to Microsoft's demands here, there will be no,
>> >let me repeat, no hardware that Fedora can be easily installed
>> >on.  Here is why:
>> >
>> >By your own explanation, you think that without the special key,
>> >controlled by Microsoft, Fedora would be too hard for some people
>> >to install.  OK, so you agree that Fedora must get permission
>> >from Microsoft to allow easy installs of Fedora.
>> >
>> >The game is now just about over.  What if one day, Microsoft
>> >makes it even harder to install Fedora without a Microsoft
>> >controlled key?  What if, as has already happened with ARM,
>> >Microsoft refuses to grant Fedora a special key?
>> >
>> >No.  Let Red Hat tell the truth.  Let Red Hat design a better
>> >UEFI motherboard.
>> 
>> So now the target has moved from Red Hat buying some hardware with
>> secure boot disabled to Red Hat hiring a design team (at signficant
>> cost) and developing their own motherboard.
>
>Yes.  That has always been part of one of my short list of
>suggestions.
>
>Why not?
>
>ad design team at significant cost: Yes, of course.  As has been
>mentioned, all prototype UEFIs seen by the Red Hat team have bad
>interfaces.  Why not make a better one?
>
>> 
>> It is so nice that you are so willing to spend Red Hat's money, though
>> I suspect the shareholders would have other ideas about entering into
>> the world of spending lots of money to design a motherboard that you
>> then intend to sell at a loss.
>
>Gerald, I will not respond in detail to your post.  I will say
>two things:
>
>Red Hat, before its initial public offering, arranged to lose
>money, so that the company would appear more attractive to
>investors.
>
>By the incorrect theory of business explicit in your post, every
>cost borne by Red Hat, every investment made by Red Hat, must
>necessarily result in Red Hat going broke.

I never said that.

What I said was selling hardware at a loss (ie. lose money on the
hardware sale) is not something that makes sense for a software
company like Red Hat.

There are some markets where selling at a loss makes sense - the
proverbial razor blade example - because you make up the difference
and then some in selling an add on.

But because Fedora is free, there is no way to make up the money lost
on the hardware sale.