Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
Why specifically aren't they allowed to have a disable feature? Also, unless Windows simply won't install on an uncertified device (which IMO is worse than Linux's SB problem), why is certification the manufacturer's problem? They can just shoot for Android and still make money. With the way you're putting it, it seems like MS is blackmailing HW manufacturers with very little leverage.
You know, I've developed a low opinion of your intellect. I've already answered all these questions in the post you quoted, but I'll slog through again. If you reply a second time with verbatim complaints which I have already addressed, notice is hereby served that the answers are in this post.

The reason ARM OEMs aren't able to include a disable feature is because Microsoft said so, and that's all I know about it. Also, their market dominance is not something I would write off as being "very little leverage". If you want your OEM hardware to wear the "Certified for Windows 8" sticker on the front, you do what Microsoft says.

... since SB doesn't seem to be a MS-only product, it's kinda difficult to sue them when they're not the only one you should be pointing fingers at.
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.


Accusing us of being short-sighted is just as short-sighted as the companies who agreed to support such a technology
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. 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.

Uh... where are you getting the impression we don't care?
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.

What I've been saying is AGAINST SecureBoot
Then I wasn't talking to you...

but as I've said a dozen times before, there needs to be a compromise. It doesn't HAVE to be a BIOS option, it could be a motherboard jumper setting. After all, allowing a software method to disable a "security" feature is in itself a security flaw.
...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.