*countable infinities only

[Chris Murphy]

On Jun 18, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Seth Johnson wrote:
> I will say: A political campaign
> that rebukes Microsoft.

For what? Come up with three example picket sign messages for your campaign, and *briefly* elaborate on each one using less than 60 words each.


> A stand that does not accommodate Microsoft
> before we see a technical path forward and a realistic future for free
> software.

Microsoft is concerned about boot loader malware. And they have a solution to this problem in the form of Secure Boot and the Windows 8 hardware requirements. No accommodation by a 3rd part is possible

You have three choices: produce a compelling thesis and explanation why their concern is unwarranted; prove a Secure Boot vulnerability exists ideally with an example exploit which cannot easily be fixed within the present specification (i.e. it's a fundamental flaw, not merely a bug); or an alternative to Secure Boot and/or Windows 8 hardware requirements that meets Microsoft and OEMs UX goals.

More than convincing Fedora decision makers, or Red Hat, your argument for an alternative must be compelling to Microsoft. Those insisting on a foundation that's adversarial will 100% fail to come up with an alternative to the solution Microsoft and OEMs have already satisfactorily arrived at for their concern.


>  Technically, I'll say only this for now: a UEFI that tells
> the truth to the user and makes things non-scary, on trustworthy
> hardware -- plus all the infrastructure needed to render the use of
> these systems viable for free software.

So you're saying hardware vendors should not be free to create a crap UEFI UX? How do you propose enforcing this?

Chris Murphy