Windows 8 Requires Secure Boot, May Hinder Other Software
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.
E-mail Print r 15   · Read More · 172 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/jfg
Thread beginning with comment 490448
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[14]: Comment by OSbunny
by nonoitall on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 05:21 UTC in reply to "RE[13]: Comment by OSbunny"
nonoitall
Member since:
2011-09-22

The ONLY reason you would point out an astronomical improbability is to try to imply that it wasn't astronomically improbable, and that we should be worried about it.

I think you need to take a step back and listen to yourself. Quit dealing in absolutes and I'm confident this silly line of discussion will evaporate in no time.

"We ignore insignificant probabilities because they have no bearing on what we are going to do. We can effectively ignore it, and we do." Says it all, really.

Yes, most of us, myself included, are content to ignore them. But we do not deny that they exist. You do when you say it is "not possible" for OSS to be compromised by malware.

The only reason that I can think of that you would fret so over astronomical improbabilities is, err ... nope, I've got nothing.

It's because you have repeatedly made absolute assertions that say those improbabilities are impossibilities.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[15]: Comment by OSbunny
by lemur2 on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 06:04 in reply to "RE[14]: Comment by OSbunny"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Yes, most of us, myself included, are content to ignore them. But we do not deny that they exist. You do when you say it is "not possible" for OSS to be compromised by malware.


Not at all. I am simply ignoring an astronomically improbable possibility, just as I do when every day I fail to fret over the possibility that the sun might blow up.

It's because you have repeatedly made absolute assertions that say those improbabilities are impossibilities.


Not at all. I have just rounded the probability to the fourteenth decimal place, and as a result my approximation, good enough for discussion here, was zero.

IOW, you are, apparently, an incurable pedant. That criticism, coming from me, is more scathing than you can possibly imagine.

Edited 2011-09-23 06:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[16]: Comment by OSbunny
by nonoitall on Fri 23rd Sep 2011 06:50 in reply to "RE[15]: Comment by OSbunny"
nonoitall Member since:
2011-09-22

IOW, you are, apparently, an incurable pedant. That criticism, coming from me, is more scathing than you can possibly imagine.

Oh heavens to Betsy! I don't think I shall ever recover! :-D

"IOW", find someone else to have your little semantics competition with. Your comments just snuck below OSS malware infections on my list of things to pay attention to.

Edited 2011-09-23 06:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1