Re: *countable infinities only
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, drago01 <drago01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Nicu Buculei <nicu_fedora@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06/12/2012 12:58 PM, drago01 wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Nicu Buculei wrote: >>> >>> >>> The point is we have a target audience: >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_base >>> >>> Our desired users ARE contributors. >> >> >> We do have a mission as well: >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview#Our_Mission >> >> "The Fedora Project consistently seeks to create, improve, and spread >> free/libre code and content. " > > > And Bingo! the mission is all about freedom. I didn't deny that. >> Which you don't do by excluding users ... sure we want to gain new >> contributors but that does not mean that we should exclude other >> users. > > > Not if it affects our freedom, is a problem of freedom versus convenience. No because secure boot does not limit your freedom in *any* way. If you want to hack on the kernel or other low level stuff flip a switch in the firmware. It is reasonable to expect this type of users to be able to do that.
Up until now, installing a free OS did not require the extra moves, which Fedora admits are irksome. If Microsoft succeeds in imposing Microsoft Root Control, then it becomes even harder to install free software, as compared to running a Microsoft OS which is already loaded on the box at point of sale. If we let them, Microsoft will have erected yet another barrier to running free software. ad diction: "SecureBoot" does not mean "secure boot" in the situation where a large rich entity hostile to free software holds the unique key which allows booting on the hardware. To continue to call the arrangement under which Microsoft holds the root key to the hardware "SecureBoot" is inaccurate. If any Fedora developer uses the term without explanation of its real meaning, that developer suggests to those listening, that the developer thinks that Microsoft holding the root key is more secure than Fedora holding the root key, or the owner of the hardware holding the root key. It is ridiculous to use a term invented by Microsoft to mislead people who do not understand that "SecureBoot" means Root Control by Microsoft.
> If spreading to some users means losing some freedom, then I think that is > against the mission. We are not loosing any freedom we are implementing a technology that makes fedora work out of the box on newer hardware.
No, if we have to beg Microsoft for permission to conveniently install Fedora, we have lost our freedom to conveniently, without asking permission of Microsoft, install Fedora. Why should we beg Microsoft for a power which last month we had, and which Microsoft has seized to itself? Of course the actions by Microsoft are against anti-trust law in the US and in Europe grossly violate the rule against tying of software and hardware. And claiming "Why you could pirouette and do a handspring backwards, and if Microsoft agrees, then you can install Fedora, so there is no extra bar to installation." is incorrect. Before now we did not have to do the pirouette and handspring. Before the New Microsoft Regime of Booting, we did not have to beg Microsoft to sign our keys. No. Our side must here stand and fight. oo--JS. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel