Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 31st Oct 2011 12:25 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 495034
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-01-28
Straho,
"I hope small and local OEMs to get this chance and produce non-windows hardware. For example Pardus will equip turkish schools with linux computers and tablets. That's big opportunity and must be used be local companies and governments."
Interesting, MS is generally the benefactor of secure boot because they are a monopoly in most places. But in theory, secure boot could be used to exclude windows in favor of something else. Some people might enjoy the revenge aspect, but personally I'd be just as disappointed in my lack of control over my own machine.
Once a repressive government regime gets ahold of this and mandates their own keys in consumer gear, only then will people realize how Orwellian secure boot really is.
Edit: Just because I don't want people misrepresenting my view, I'd like to state again that a secure boot feature is a good thing, but only if it's entirely under the control of the true owner. A secure boot specification which allows for the possibility of the owner to be permanently locked out by third parties is nefarious.
Edited 2011-10-31 16:29 UTC