Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 21st Sep 2011 22:06 UTC, submitted by kragil
Windows After the walled garden coming to the desktop operating system world, we're currently witnessing another potential nail in the coffin of the relatively open world of desktop and laptop computing. Microsoft has revealed [.pptx] that as part of its Windows 8 logo program, OEMs must implement UEFI secure boot. This could potentially complicate the installation of other operating systems, like Windows 7, XP, and Linux.
Thread beginning with comment 490345
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by ronaldst
by Alfman on Thu 22nd Sep 2011 10:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ronaldst"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

Tony Swash,

"I don't know much or care much about UEFI secure boot in Windows 8 and clearly it's possible to facilitate the installation of alternative operating systems via UEFI as Apple did with the Mac but 'anti-user'?

It's worth remembering that 99% of users want stuff that works out of the box, they don't want to be system integrators..."

I think we all get this. But the question is why was it engineered to take power away from the owners? This is not a necessary element of secure boot. Even if 99% of users never need to touch it, why prohibit them from doing so if they want to use it with their own code? That's the problem that we/I have.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[3]: Comment by ronaldst
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 22nd Sep 2011 11:12 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ronaldst"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I think we all get this. But the question is why was it engineered to take power away from the owners? This is not a necessary element of secure boot. Even if 99% of users never need to touch it, why prohibit them from doing so if they want to use it with their own code? That's the problem that we/I have.


The problem is that Apple fanatics tend to be blind to issues beyond the needs of Apple users. The kind of control we hand over to private entities we have ZERO control over, entities which have very close ties to what I consider to be an immoral, inhumane, and barbaric regime (the US one, no matter the party or president in power) is something I do not find particularly comforting.

Not that it WILL affect me in any way, but the POSSIBILITY should make any true democrat [the ideology, not the party] nervous.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by ronaldst
by vitae on Thu 22nd Sep 2011 21:18 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ronaldst"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

immoral, inhumane, and barbaric regime (the US one, no matter the party or president in power)


Okay, I have a question, if this can be done in a civilized manner. I've no problem with people calling us Americans barbarians and such. It's true, we took this land forcibly from the Native Americans and built it up with slavery, exploiting Chinese workers so and so forth.

What I don't understand is why these lectures come so often from Europeans, when everything we learned about violence and oppression, we learned from them. Millenia of wars, colonialism and brutality towards each other and people across the planet seems to have been forgotten rather quickly.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by ronaldst
by Tony Swash on Thu 22nd Sep 2011 18:44 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ronaldst"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

I think we all get this. But the question is why was it engineered to take power away from the owners? This is not a necessary element of secure boot. Even if 99% of users never need to touch it, why prohibit them from doing so if they want to use it with their own code? That's the problem that we/I have.



Personally I think it's because Microsoft has always had a monopolistic business model, since they achieved a monopoly position in relation to Windows and Office everything they have done has been about defending and extending that monopoly. It's what has made them so bad at innovating. Microsoft knows, deep down inside, that if it's core products had to compete on a level playing field against just as viable alternatives that they would fail.

Reply Parent Score: 1