On Jun 8, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Gerry Reno wrote: > > No. It's entirely anti-competitive: > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/blog/2012/jan/12/microsoft-confirms-UEFI-fears-locks-down-ARM/ > > > http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/ You're confusing restriction of user choice and freedom with anti-competition. The argument that this is anti-competitive when Microsoft ARM hardware is a tiny part of the market is uncompelling. This is mentioned in the first article. Further, it is possible, while presently difficult perhaps, to run a different OS on such hardware that requires Secure Boot. But I haven't read a compelling argument how this difficulty can't be dealt with, let alone how it makes the policy anti-competitive. To boot a non-Windows 8 operating system requires the same steps as Microsoft needs to get the hardware to boot Windows 8. What's the additional burden being applied to non-Windows 8 systems? Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
