On 06/26/12 at 12:55am, Karol Babioch wrote: > I have only the following criticism: Given the relatively low cost of > getting a signed certificate from Microsoft (to my knowledge it will > cost about 100 USD), it might fail to achieve what it is proposed to. > Obviously Microsoft will try to prevent any sort of abuse, but even if > Microsoft only hands out signed certificates after some extensive checks > to trustworthy companies/organisations, it can't control it from there > on any more. Just for clarification: you seem to be endorsing a model in which organizations (linux distros?) pay Microsoft for the right to install non-Microsoft software in PCs. Is that correct? Manolo
