So why do you think that no antitrust shit will be raining when Windows 9 is released?Quote:
They don't do it know, because of all the antitrust shit that will rain over them.
The only way would be if Microsoft suddenly wouldn't be a monopoly anymore. But If Microsoft will not rule the market anymore, why should the manufacturers close their products to the other players on the market.
Microsoft won the browser wars in the beginning, but look at the browsers now, in the long run there was competition. I think that the same will be with the OSes, they won the OS wars in the beginning, but we will see diversion again.
I am curious to find out what Debian's approach will be.
It is very interesting due to the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG).
basically debian does not need to discuss things that could be disabled with a simple setup setting. they should better provide grub 2.00 in experimental soon.
First of all i still doubt that you can boot with that signed loader. Even if you could that give you no extra security the way ubuntu wants to do it, you just save the 30s you need to enter you setup and disable it. Wow, so much trouble for such a small effect. Better provide uptodate bootloaders instead of heavyly patched old ones...
Because there's no guarantee Microsoft won't change their agreement in the future.
Because there may be companies that will only accept SecureBoot "protected" OSes on their company computers, so a solution is required if Linux wants to be part of that space.
You know, if they don't want to boot a signed kernel directly from UEFI which isn't that hard, they can just use this.