Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 19:34 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Hardware, Embedded Systems A big issue right now in the world of operating systems - especially Linux - is Microsoft's requirement that all Windows 8 machines ship with UEFI's secure boot enabled, with no requirement that OEMs implement it so users can turn it off. This has caused some concern in the Linux world, and considering Microsoft's past and current business practices and the incompetence of OEMs, that's not unwarranted. CNet's Ed Bott decided to pose the issue to OEMs. Dell stated is has plans to include the option to turn secure boot off, while HP was a bit more vague about the issue.
Thread beginning with comment 495704
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Soulbender
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 21:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Soulbender"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

But you know you can keep on reacting on your emotions and talking crap .. since that is largely what most people do here.


And what you're doing is reasonable, calm, and utterly rational and not at all abrasive, right?

Reply Parent Score: 4

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

And what you're doing is reasonable, calm, and utterly rational and not at all abrasive, right?


Well I keep on replying will well reasoned arguments but everyone seems to go into "Microsoft is the EVILZ!" mode ... and cannot seem to go beyond that.

So after attacking arguing with a logical one must assume the other person has an Agenda, usually pro floss ... or trolling ... so I attack that ... Problem??

OEMS will not stop the installation of Windows 7 for pure business reasons ... something which you keep on ignoring .. and I have said in POST 1.

Which is for some odd reason is ignored :-|

Edited 2011-11-03 22:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Soulbender
by shmerl on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 22:10 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Soulbender"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

So the proof is just "most probably because of business reasons they wont"? Doesn't sound assuring enough, since those reasons are not set in stone. While no rule mandates OEMs to give the user an ability to control UEFI keys or disabling it altogether - there is a risk of having a computer which won't boot what user wants.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Soulbender
by Alfman on Thu 3rd Nov 2011 22:32 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Soulbender"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

lucas_maximus,

"Well I keep on replying will well reasoned arguments but everyone seems to go into 'Microsoft is the EVILZ!' mode ... and cannot seem to go beyond that."

This has absolutely nothing to do with microsoft being evil. I wouldn't care if microsoft had zero involvement, it's bad to have a security feature that bans owners from accessing the keys in their own hardware.

Now microsoft may be a primary benefactor and driver, but this criticism against the proposed secure boot spec has nothing to do with being anti-microsoft. It's about the deteriorating conditions for those of us who believe an open computing future is better than a closed computing future.

Reply Parent Score: 9