is this true

[Stephen M. Webb]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09/27/2011 03:36 PM, Deryl R. Doucette wrote:
> Microsoft sits on the UEFI board. Please. Like Microsoft doesn't know
that A) its own keys WILL be preloaded thus making sure Windows is a
*definite* installable choice, and that B) it directly impacts, through
its sheer buying power and OEM programs, what OSs and configurations
will be default available. We're not even going to mention that
Microsoft has *already* been pushing on OEM and other system
manufacturers to enable SecureBoot *by default* and to NOT include
options for A) Adding additional signing keys, and B) disabling
SecureBoot on prebuilt PCs regardless of whether they are being sold
through Microsoft OEM / Manufacturer channels.
Certainly, Microsoft sits on the UEFI board.  Why would they not, and
why should they not?

Microsoft does not have to insist that their keys be made available in
Secure Boot.  All OEMs wil have their ODMs burn Microsoft keys into
the Secure Boot ROM so that they can move product at minuscule margins.

It is not Microsoft's business to make sure an ODM burns someone
else's keys into their product, it is Microsoft's business to make
sure the OEM or brand company purchases Windows licenses each time the
Microsoft keys are burned into silicon.  That's where their
responsibility ends.

It might be in the interest of the OEM or brand company to insist the
ODM conform to the UEFI spec by providing a means to disable Secure
Boot so that other OSes can be booted.  It is in the interest of the
people (which in Canada means the government, which acts on behalf of
the people in theory) to make sure that happens, otherwise there is
apparent collusion to monopolize the marketplace.  I am skeptical that
at least the current government is interested in preserving freedoms.

> That tells me that Microsoft is trying to co-opt a technology designed
for ALL machines for their OWN agenda. Business logic or not, thats
another strike against Microsoft.

I can not agree.  I see Microsoft benefiting from this technology, as
will many users.  I do not see them taking any sort of active role to
quash the (virtually non-existent) competition.  It is also not in
their interest to take any sort of active role in providing for their
competition, either.  If anyone is at fault, blame the crappy ODM
implementations and the nefarious criminals making a solution like
Secure Boot necessary.

- -- 
Stephen M. Webb  <stephen at ubuntu.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk6CKvEACgkQTLRKqWcl7vMb+ACglMS0Rcx9GvNPsx5LD2Xt2xY2
HqQAoKrR3w/uo1+2alr6U7MjFBpQdCwD
=UBmN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----