Windows 8's use of the UEFI Secure Boot

[Avi Greenbury]

Tim Hanson wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 27, 2011 08:14:19 pm Ernest Doub wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Avi Greenbury <lists at avi.co>
> > wrote:
> > > Bill Stanley wrote:
> > > > I read the linked webpage and judging from the reader comments,
> > > > this website is hardly neutral.
> > > 
> > > Well, no, of course it's not neutral. Almost all the reporting is
> > > either viewing it as a good thing or a bad thing.
> > > 
> > > > The opinions are distinctly pro-Windows. It's not surprising
> > > > that they paint a pretty face on things.  They say that
> > > > Microsoft did not directly develop the protocol and are simply
> > > > implementing it.
> > > 
> > > Which, while besides the point, is true.
> 
> Why can't it be true, and also be mere propaganda?  Is the use of
> proxies to avoid taking responsibility for one's own actions
> acceptable, in your opinion?

Well, it can. Though that's more normally termed 'marketing'.

I thought you were meaning to imply that MS *did* directly implement
the protocol or that the fact that they were saying this was somehow
important.

> > > > My question is how much support in terms of money and free
> > > > manpower did they contribute.
> > > 
> > > I'm intrigued - why would that matter?
> 
> You don't think Microsoft's cash matters?  Please explain.

I'm not sure what there is to explain; if someone produces something
useful or good, I don't think the goodness of that something is
contingent on the goodness of that someone.

> > > > the support came from M$.
> > > 
> > > Please don't do that. It's 'MS'.
> > > 
> In what way is "MS" more appropriate than "M$?"

Well, 'MS' is an obvious abbreviation for 'Microsoft' while 'M$'
reminds me of trolling. 

It's just rather hard to look like you're making a reasonable point
while maintaining that spelling of Microsoft. If you're that wedded to
using it, I can't say I'm *that* bothered, I just wish people wouldn't
do it.

-- 
Avi