To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Angry much.
You are going off on one for the sake of it ... TBH I have heard more FUD from the FLOSS community than anyone about Windows 8 ..
But never mind you guys like to raeg about whatever.
As I keep saying OEMs would be mental to stop people booting Widnows 7 since most businesses have only or just started testing for Win7 ... and won't want to move til nearer 2020.
But you know you can keep on reacting on your emotions and talking crap .. since that is largely what most people do here.
No.
No.
So have I. I don't think most OEM's will prevent other OS to be installed or, in case of server hardware, even enable secure boot by default. That doesn't mean this isn't a potential problem and going off on a rant against RH/C/FSF and the FOSS community, who's trying to prevent the problem, is just lame.
More from that MS blog post:
Sounds like an oxymoron to me. So is the user in control, or OEMs are free to choose how to enable/disable user's ability to control UEFI? Sounds like the second is more to the point, and "user is in control" is just empty PR talk.
I will keep on arguing the same stuff whatever the evidence presented to me.</sarcasm>
Dell and HP have said they will support disable secure boot. Why don't you actually like raeg when they like "don't" do what they say. Since the statements are perfectly clear to me ... apparently not Thom ... I don't see what the problem is.
"For Windows customers, Microsoft is using the Windows Certification program to ensure that systems shipping with Windows 8 have secure boot enabled by default,
Funny how Mr Bott does not mention that, eh? "It's a sensible thing to do, though - the majority would never enable the feature, and it'd be all for nothing.
As long as "enabled by default" doesn't imply "with no way to disable it", it's a perfectly fine choice IMHO.





Member since:
2005-08-18
Mr Bott is pretty good at drumming up the sensationalism and FUD himself.
What movement against Secure Boot? The RH/Canonical/LF campaign is not anti-secure boot. Propaganda? For what? Having a choice? Is that somehow bad?
As for the confirmation by the leading PC makers...
HP's company line pretty much mean "I dont fscking know, ok? Wait while we figure out what's best for us".
That's hair-splitting. The blog post was made by Mr Sinofsky but the majority of the content written by Mr Mangefeste.
Funny how he takes the MS guys at their word but the LF guys are the devils minions, more or less. Yeah, Corporate propaganda is so much more trustworthy.
From the MS blog:
Funny how Mr Bott does not mention that, eh?
Also from the blog:
Yeah...anything not Windows 8 is old. No propaganda to see here. No sireeeee....
Blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda. Much fud follows.
At the end of the day, this COULD become a problem so what's the harm in attacking it now BEFORE it actually becomes one? Sitting on your ass and hoping for the best isn't the wise choice.
Edited 2011-11-03 21:47 UTC