[DC LoCo] Mark Shuttleworth responds to: Any comment on the Ubuntu UEFI ruckus?

jerry w jerrywone at gmail.com
Wed Jun 20 15:15:06 UTC 2012

In an educational environment,
it would be like restricting books to just
textbooks, or certain authors,
classical eras, etc...

In a corporate/ profit oriented place,
well M$ might rule...
One more reason not to wear a suit...

In a non profit environment,
people would likely be volunteering
and say get access to InDesign
for publishing (an expensive package,
that bombed a lot when I tried it,
but could have been the net admin,
sys admin or lack thereof...
not my role, I was doing content)
But using some odd (M$ is for me)
OS, highly constrained policy
and procedures and well, cost/
benefit that with what Good
one would/ could do,

I think the Monopoly/ anti trust
angle might be the most productive
for free and open source, but I'm no expert
on that or much else.
IANAL, and don't play one on the web/
TV, IRL etc.

Mark with his security company
background and resources
plus open source/ free software background
might be good to entice
further into the [political] arena

In other news, shutting down
"illegal" software and domains
between countries (SOPA, et. al.)
could be really bad
for some of us FOSS round here...
Given "they" think we are all just
pirates anyway...

The combination of above,
might be the Perfect Storm
designed to sink FOSS?

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Kevin Cole <dc.loco at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:45 AM, jerry w <jerrywone at gmail.com> wrote:
>> that's one thing for a personal use computer,
>> and I agree, I buy something I damn
>> well better be able to run whatever
>> I want on it...
>> what about work computers?
>> Boss/ Job wants only certain applications
>> and OS run on work time, and work
>> resources,
>> and then there is the gov/ military
>> sector, where the information is Owned
>> and access control needed
>> ala wikileaks...
> Well, at a different level, it's the same thing: A sysadmin / "security
> officer" / what-have-you should be allowed to actively choose to have
> Microsoft (or whomever) manage the campus-wide security OR say "We have the
> in-house expertise to dig our own graves... er, manage our own security."
> ;-)  Said employees can then dictate and mandate requirements for all
> machines under their control and either firewall off machines that are
> brought in from the outside, or just prevent them from being brought in at
> all.  Sure even with all the protections in place, someone, somewhere will
> screw up and eventually something nasty will happen (which is why I never
> want a job in security: I have a hard enough time sleeping at night), but
> that's going to be true in a Microsoft-controlled world as well, n'est pas?
> --
> Ubuntu-us-dc mailing list
> Ubuntu-us-dc at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-us-dc

Jerry W

More information about the Ubuntu-us-dc mailing list