Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Jan 2012 16:20 UTC, submitted by moondevil
Permalink for comment 503404
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 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-01-28
ilovebeer,
Adding to your lists:
Fact: Vendor locks restrict choice (that's the whole point of them)
Fact: The "designed for windows 8" computers would run alternate operating systems fine if not for the microsoft imposed restrictions.
Fact: The more vendors that lock hardware, the smaller the set of users who have the ability to try alternate operating systems on their hardware.
Fact: Independent development projects traditionally start out running on existing off the shelf hardware. When it is locked, it raises the bar to entry, creates fragmentation, and limits market potential.
Fact: Users who must buy (and tote) multiple devices to try out alternate operating systems will be less inclined to do so.
Fact: Locked devices prevent users from recycling/re-provisioning them when the manufacturer drops support.
Fact: Secure boot doesn't protect from operating system vulnerabilities.
Fact: Microsoft made dishonest statements regarding forcing OEMs to lock devices.
Fact: Once these devices hit the market, there will be no way within the UEFI spec to unlock just one device without compromising all of the other devices sharing the same platform keys.
Edited 2012-01-14 07:31 UTC