is this true

Chris candive1 at gmail.com
Tue Sep 27 22:49:19 UTC 2011


The day I cannot load a Linux or any OS of "My choice" I will blame
Microsoft, they have a long history of dirty tricks and manipulation.
I did not ask for their protection.
And I very strongly object to Microsoft having "any" control of anything
Linux.
I believe strongly in Freedom, not dictators.
No one will be able to change my opinion about Microsoft.
My 2 cents.

Chris.

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Stephen M. Webb <stephen at ubuntu.com> wrote:

>
> -----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-----
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-ca mailing list
> ubuntu-ca at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-ca
>



-- 
Linux! The Freedom to Choose.
www.bglug.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-ca/attachments/20110927/43dc09ec/attachment.html>


More information about the ubuntu-ca mailing list