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 490354
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by ronaldst
by JAlexoid on Thu 22nd Sep 2011 11:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ronaldst"
JAlexoid
Member since:
2009-05-19

It's like cars. Most normal people want cars so they can drive about and do stuff, stuff not to do with cars but normal stuff. A very small minority of people actually like to tinker with cars, they don't want cars just to drive about, they want to play around with their inner workings. So if a car company came out with a new car and said 'our new design is proved to be 10 times more reliable than current car designs but it involves sealing the engine compartment so you cannot get at the engine with seeing a professional mechanic' consumers would lap it up. And they would be right to lap it up as it would meet their needs better.


Consumers actually tend to stay further away from cars that can't be serviced at a low enough cost after their warranty expires. And the majority of the world's population does not drive a new car(3 or less y/o).
People are very well aware of maintenance issues...

If the car manufacturer came out and said: "We will not allow access to the engine, but you get a 20 year warranty on the car"; then consumers would snatch it.

Computer maintenance is less of a normal thing, like changing worn out belts in a car, but still...

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by ronaldst
by jack_perry on Thu 22nd Sep 2011 15:44 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ronaldst"
jack_perry Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, we have the situation he describes now: manufacturers have for more than a decade now been manufacturing cars where it is very hard, if not impossible, for an ordinary consumer to change the oil: the filter is out of reach; "protective covers" have been screwed onto the bottoms of cars, etc. And never mind the use of computers within cars, that make it impossible to hand-tune the way people used to.

Yet people don't avoid these cars: they buy them, then take them to mechanics, and pay the fees gladly, in no small part because they're more reliable: today's cars last a *lot* longer than cars of a half-century ago. Whether they're more reliable because it's impossible for Jim Bob to change his own oil is not clear to me, but they guy has a point.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by ronaldst
by JAlexoid on Sat 24th Sep 2011 22:24 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ronaldst"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

What you said, I implied. But it's not about the things being further away, it's about having to go to an "authorized service". Have you seen the prices these thieves charge?
Most people don't service their cars, but they do appreciate the ability to bring it to a service that is cheaper and, probably, geographically closer. Even the ECU can be tuned by an unauthorized technician*.

With these encryption and signature schemes, there is no

* - I know first hand, since I made a lot of software and hardware to get the actual access to the parameters of different ECU and other automotive electronics.

Reply Parent Score: 2