I could say the same about my opinion of your intellect, but that's besides the point. Microsoft doesn't have a legal right to tell hardware manufacturers to add SB, so that CAN'T be the reason for not offering a disable feature. MS has a market dominance in x86, not ARM. Windows 8 is doing worse than Vista. That being said, you're comparing the wrong numbers. In the ARM world, Windows RT has very little leverage, therefore, HW manufacturers aren't in a situation where they MUST listen to MS; they can just shoot for Android. And again, why does the HW manufacturer have to care if their product is certified? No average joe is going ask a company like Dell "hey is this computer Windows RT compatible?". If Dell ships a computer with Windows RT on it (assuming they're legally allowed to, I'm not sure), they don't HAVE to say "Windows RT Certified". The reason I believe this is because you're allowed to build and sell a computer with a valid Windows license on it. Most people don't care if a computer is known to be certified and many people don't even understand what the difference between Windows XP and Windows 7. As for everyone else, they KNOW the system is Windows compatible if Windows shipped with their computer. I get your point but it's a market scheme that really only works on devices that an individual's computer didn't come with. So for example, all monitors ought to work with whatever GPU they can connect to, but some might say "Windows ## compatible" which helps comfort clueless customers.
Originally Posted by Larian
I didn't say it WASN'T a MS product, I just wasn't sure if it was 100% a MS product - there might be other companies involved with the development of it. I don't do much research on SB.
SecureBoot isn't a Microsoft product? Funny, I thought it was. Especially since you have to get a key from Microsoft -for a fee, no less- to allow your OS to boot. In my little world, if you have to pay someone for something before you can use it, that sounds remarkably like their product.
What do you mean "keep using that word"? If its the word I think you're referring to, I only used it twice in the same sentence. Anyways, you made your point - but it seems as though you understood mine, even if I approached it incorrectly.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Accusing people of making statements they've not put a lot of quality thought into is not short-sighted, it's an observation of fallacious thinking in action.
Seriously? Now you're just nit-picketing. The "bowing to market pressures" is basically what I was getting at. A hardware manufacturer that supports SB can point straight to "bowing to market pressure". But, as stated before, I don't think HW manufacturers are in enough pressure, so that's why I think them supporting SB in general is stupid.
Neither is supporting SecureBoot a short-sighted measure, but bowing to market pressures leveraged by Microsoft. (Keep in mind this only applies to OEMs who want the certification for what I assume are marketing purposes.) Attempting to get into a logical quibble with a philosopher ... that was short-sighted.
Saying comments like that is not going to get anyone to favor you. First of all, I understand the "send it to me, I'll give a good home" was sarcastic but that wasn't what I was referring to - it was the "don't care what happens to your computer" part, which doesn't sound sarcastic at all, especially through text. I never said SB wasn't a big deal, its an extremely big deal. While you could just boycott a certain brand, what if that brand has the best product? And I know you can't "just turn it off if you don't like it", that also isn't what I said OR implied. You accuse me of being retarded (unless that too was ironically sarcastic) but you're being belligerently ignorant. I was saying while MS doesn't have a legal right to force SB upon us, it's also not realistic to remove SB entirely. So, instead of making a petition to remove it (likely unsuccessful, unless Google joins in), there could be a petition to make a compromise by having the option to disable it, or perhaps to have an identical product that doesn't have SB. It's obviously not favorable to either side but its better than letting it be a permanent feature.
Sarcasm is lost on the retarded. Also, people are saying stupid shit that amounts to "This SecureBoot stuff is not a big deal. Just turn it off if you don't like it." And you can't turn it off on ARM devices with Windows 8 certification. What's more, allowing for a disabling measure on x86 hardware is not mandatory.
For someone as anal about specifics as yourself, you should have been more explicit.
Then I wasn't talking to you...
This is for people who would go out of their way to install Linux on a device that would be considered otherwise completely unsupported by the manufacturer. As I said before, installing Linux on ARM is not a user friendly process and not even an expert friendly process either, depending on the platform. Also, I didn't say that people would be required to open up a their product and take out this jumper. Maybe there could just be 2 identical systems that are sold, one with a jumper, one without. You would then have the option to add or remove the jumper if you chose to do so.
...but since you insist on not reading a word I've said, A jumper setting is NOT OKAY because it makes things worse than they are now for new users. You're asking unqualified and uneducated people to put hands on raw electronics in a world where scareware and phishing schemes are a multi-billion dollar industry. What's more, Windows users don't have to do it because it'll just work for them out of the box. Your easy fix won't work. Do you understand? It. Will. Not. Work.