Windows 8's use of the UEFI Secure Boot

[Tim Hanson]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:04:46 am Avi Greenbury wrote:
> 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'.

No problem, as long as readers recognize it as such, and not an honest 
evaluation from neutrals.  And it is true, except that M$ has been caught, 
both in the U.S. and Europe, of arm-twisting behind the scenes to, for 
example, compel hardware manufacturers to ship only Microsoft products.  One 
should be very wary of this kind of downstream blame shifting.

> 
> 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.

No.  They're smart.  If they did mandate an exclusionary protocol overtly, 
authorities would have a strong case.  This way they can drive the process 
covertly, by withholding joint marketing arrangements, charging one 
manufacturer more for Windows, etc., etc.  This way, they can say, in effect, 
"Hey, it's not us!  Go over there and talk to that guy!"   So their hands are 
clean, but suddenly no one is shipping hardware with OS/2 on it, or Linux, or 
Netscape, or any other competing technology, no matter how innovative.

Go to the Dell site and see if you can find their Ubuntu products.

> 
> > > > > 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.

Well, sorry to inflame your tender sensibilities.  This list has a code of 
conduct.  Is there a separate one for you only?

> 
> It's just rather hard to look like you're making a reasonable point
> while maintaining that spelling of Microsoft. 

I appreciate the incredible difficulty.  On a Linux list, let's just call it 
marketing.

> If you're that wedded to
> using it, I can't say I'm *that* bothered, I just wish people wouldn't
> do it.