Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Jan 2012 16:20 UTC, submitted by moondevil
Permalink for comment 503596
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 05/22/13 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
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
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-01-28
ilovebeer,
So, you're counterarguments revolve around the assumption that vendors will refuse to manufacturer win8 devices and/or users will refuse to buy them.
Believe it or not, on this level, I actually agree. The harm caused by locked mainboards is very dependent on the number of locked mainboards which make it to market.
If windows 8 ARM devices are a market flop, then the damage caused by them being locked will be relatively minor. If windows 8 devices dominate the market, then the proliferation of the OS restricted mainboards would be devastating to the cause of open computing.
Now, I know you disagree vehemently with the cause of open computing, however you should still recognize that the above paragraph is true. So, on the assumption that windows 8 will be successful, then we do have cause to be concerned.
Edit: That's without considering any further repercussions of microsoft's restricted boot features having already become part of the UEFI standard.
Edited 2012-01-16 05:54 UTC