Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 19:34 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Permalink for comment 495700
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 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 11:39 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 11:32 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 19:39 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-08-18
Mr Bott is pretty good at drumming up the sensationalism and FUD himself.
What movement against Secure Boot? The RH/Canonical/LF campaign is not anti-secure boot. Propaganda? For what? Having a choice? Is that somehow bad?
As for the confirmation by the leading PC makers...
HP's company line pretty much mean "I dont fscking know, ok? Wait while we figure out what's best for us".
That's hair-splitting. The blog post was made by Mr Sinofsky but the majority of the content written by Mr Mangefeste.
Funny how he takes the MS guys at their word but the LF guys are the devils minions, more or less. Yeah, Corporate propaganda is so much more trustworthy.
From the MS blog:
Funny how Mr Bott does not mention that, eh?
Also from the blog:
Yeah...anything not Windows 8 is old. No propaganda to see here. No sireeeee....
Blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda. Much fud follows.
At the end of the day, this COULD become a problem so what's the harm in attacking it now BEFORE it actually becomes one? Sitting on your ass and hoping for the best isn't the wise choice.
Edited 2011-11-03 21:47 UTC