is this true

Chris candive1 at
Tue Sep 27 22:57:51 UTC 2011

If enough people return their new non working computers due to being locked
out at bios.
They might eventually get the message.

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Chris <candive1 at> wrote:

> 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>wrote:
>> 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>
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
>> HqQAoKrR3w/uo1+2alr6U7MjFBpQdCwD
>> =UBmN
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> --
>> ubuntu-ca mailing list
>> ubuntu-ca at
> --
> Linux! The Freedom to Choose.

Linux! The Freedom to Choose.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the ubuntu-ca mailing list