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 -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
