Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 19:34 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Permalink for comment 495721
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 05/18/13 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
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-01-28
lucas_maximus,
"Well I keep on replying will well reasoned arguments but everyone seems to go into 'Microsoft is the EVILZ!' mode ... and cannot seem to go beyond that."
This has absolutely nothing to do with microsoft being evil. I wouldn't care if microsoft had zero involvement, it's bad to have a security feature that bans owners from accessing the keys in their own hardware.
Now microsoft may be a primary benefactor and driver, but this criticism against the proposed secure boot spec has nothing to do with being anti-microsoft. It's about the deteriorating conditions for those of us who believe an open computing future is better than a closed computing future.