*countable infinities only

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Thu Jun 14 20:15:42 UTC 2012


On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:46 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> Please forgive this top posting.
> 
> I will not answer now your radical defense of Microsoft, except to
> say two things:
> 
> 1. Your defense would apply also to the decades long fraud of
> Microsoft saying in their EULA that, if you do not run the
> Microsoft OS installed at point of sale of the hardware, you get
> a refund for the OS.  But Microsoft and the hardware vendors
> systematically refused refunds.

I don't see how that has any relevance to the present situation, and I
don't see how the argument I presented - which is entirely specific to
the case of secure boot - can be said to 'apply' to that situation.

> 2. Does your defense apply to the case of Microsoft certified devices?

Allowing your characterization of it as a 'defense' for the purposes of
argument, yes, it does. It applies specifically to that case.
Microsoft's certification requirements are really the only thing that
gives them any kind of 'influence' in this area at all. If a device
manufacturer does not care about Microsoft certification they can choose
to leave secure boot out of the firmware entirely, include it but not
include Microsoft's key, or really do anything they like. It is the
Windows certification requirements that contain Microsoft's requirements
with regard to secure boot - that it be enabled by default but can be
disabled by the user, and that the system have Microsoft's signing key
pre-installed. The UEFI specification itself does not have any such
requirements. All it does is describe the Secure Boot mechanism, really.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net



More information about the devel mailing list