Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 22:22 UTC, submitted by kragil
Permalink for comment 490673
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-01-28
lucas_maximus,
I'm not sure how your post relates to the questions in my post which you responded to?
***Hypothetically*** speaking, would you have a problem if 100% "designed for windows" OEM PCs were locked to microsoft?
If 100% makes you uncomfortable, then what hypothetical percentage would you be comfortable with? Isn't the scale of damage to the linux community proportional to the ubiquity of MS locked machines (whoever is responsible)?
Edit: I'd like to ask this again: if you were designing secure boot, would you hard code OEM/microsoft keys into it? Or would the owner have control over who's signatures to trust?
Edited 2011-09-25 01:02 UTC