To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
ilovebeer,
So, you're counterarguments revolve around the assumption that vendors will refuse to manufacturer win8 devices and/or users will refuse to buy them.
Believe it or not, on this level, I actually agree. The harm caused by locked mainboards is very dependent on the number of locked mainboards which make it to market.
If windows 8 ARM devices are a market flop, then the damage caused by them being locked will be relatively minor. If windows 8 devices dominate the market, then the proliferation of the OS restricted mainboards would be devastating to the cause of open computing.
Now, I know you disagree vehemently with the cause of open computing, however you should still recognize that the above paragraph is true. So, on the assumption that windows 8 will be successful, then we do have cause to be concerned.
Edit: That's without considering any further repercussions of microsoft's restricted boot features having already become part of the UEFI standard.
Edited 2012-01-16 05:54 UTC
If that becomes true at some point in the future, it will only affect those who willingly purchase DFW8 systems with the intent of using a non-Windows 8 operating system. My only words for such individuals would be to suggest they do their homework first next time and try to make smarter purchasing decisions that better suit their needs.
You have no idea what my views on open computing are as I've never discussed it. This is identical to your idea of what my idea of ethics are. Again, a topic I haven't discussed my views on. So far you haven't made a single assumption about my views that is correct. Maybe it's time you stop pretending you know some much about them when in fact you know next to nothing.
Regarding the success of Windows 8... The only people who may have concern are those I described above, and they are in the extreme minority. I've heard your same or similar argument time & time again over the years and one thing has always held true -- the sky has never fallen.





Member since:
2011-08-08
Please re-read the article then. The restriction is being imposed by microsoft specifically. And secondly, it's an artificial restriction prohibiting software which would otherwise work.
You still don't get it. Vendors have the option to disagree to the terms set forth by Microsoft. No company is forced to create DFW8 systems, they willingly agree to do so, or not do so.
Regarding the "restriction"... Completely irrelevant. If you don't want to use Windows 8, don't buy DFW8 hardware. Are you dumb enough to disagree? It's literally as simple as that, yet you insist on pretending all other options will cease to exist the moment DFW8 stuff hits the shelves.
For me, yes.. And I'm a daily user of both Windows and non-Windows operating systems.
I haven't seen anyone suggest the hardware is actually different. I don't think anyone is that naive. None-the-less, hardware which is locked to Windows 8 is in fact "Designed for Windows 8". I'm not sure why you're having trouble comprehending such a simple thing.
Regardless of what users should or should not do, the requirement to buy/carry separate devices at the same time will undeniably give mainstream platforms a huge advantage over independent platforms.
No such requirement exists. Nobody is being forced to do anything. You need to understand that.
I talk to devs (both by profession and hobbyist) every single day. I have yet to hear a single one of them make the same or even similar comment. This is little more than FUD. You have no tangible or substantial evidence in support of your theory.
I suspect both will become true.
So you agree, secure boot does in fact provide a level of protection.