*countable infinities only

Chris Murphy lists at colorremedies.com
Mon Jun 18 19:15:53 UTC 2012

On Jun 18, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:

> 2) Government. If a large enough set of national governments required 
> that secure boot be disabled by default then we could assume that 
> arbitrary hardware would work out of the box. It's unclear to me which 
> laws you think the vendors would be breaking, but I'm not a lawyer.

In the current U.S. (and likely EU as well) political climate, i.e. extreme ignorance of computing, fear of real and imaginary infrastructure vulnerabilities, and desire to make out with all things with the word security, there is in my estimation no chance Secure Boot nor the Windows 8 hardware requirements will be perceived as being anti-competitive.

It would be easier to find government money to retrofit older hardware with UEFI Secure Boot capability than to find the money to even explore the possibility of Microsoft (or vendor) anti-competitive behavior, in this context.

Chris Murphy

More information about the devel mailing list